Hallowed Ground, Sacred Place:
The Slave Cemetery At George Washington’s Mount Vernon
And The Cultural Landscapes Of The Enslaved
By
Joseph A. Downer
M.A. January 2015, The George Washington University
A Thesis Submitted to
The Faculty of
The Department of Anthropology
of The George Washington University in Partial Satisfaction
of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
January 31, 2015
Thesis directed by
Jeffrey Blomster
Associate Professor of Anthropology
ii
© 2015 by Joseph Andrew Downer All rights reserved.
iii
Dedication
To my family, and to those unknown who are buried on that small plot of land at Mount Vernon overlooking the Potomac River
iv
Acknowledgments
While conducting research and writing this thesis, I have received advice,
support, encouragement, and assistance from many individuals whom I would like to
take the time to thank here. I am extremely grateful for the guidance and insight of my
advisor, Dr. Jeffery Blomster. I have greatly appreciated your comments and
suggestions for this thesis, as well as your instruction over the past year and a half. My
work has benefitted tremendously from your feedback. To Dr. Garrett Fesler, thank you
for reviewing my thesis and providing both critical feedback and encouragement.
I am forever indebted to those at Mount Vernon who have been my friends,
teachers, mentors, and colleagues over the years. Thank you Dr. Esther White, Dr.
Eleanor Breen, Luke Pecoraro, Eric Benson, Karen Price, and Leah Stricker. Esther,
Eleanor, and Luke, thank you for your guidance and encouragement, both in the field
and in the lab. My work has benefited from your critical feedback during report writing,
managing volunteers, and leading the Slave Cemetery Archaeological Survey over the
course of this past year. Eric, thank you for your patience in entertaining all of my GIS-
related questions. Karen, thank you for going above and beyond with assisting me in
various capacities throughout this project. My work has benefited greatly from both
your analytical opinions and your exquisite photographs. Leah, thank you for being
someone that I could bounce ideas off of. This has certainly led to a better result, as you
often force me to consider alternative interpretations.
I would like to thank both the Anthropology Department of the George
Washington University, and the Department of Historic Preservation and Collections at
v
George Washington’s Mount Vernon. With their support I was able to attend the 48th
annual conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology and present my research in
January of 2015.
I would also like to thank the students from the joint Mount Vernon/University
of Maryland field school who participated in the first four weeks of the excavation.
These individuals include: Richard Balas, Renee Costello, Katlyn Cotton, Emily Daniel,
Angelina Johnston, Amy McKinney, Kevin McQueeney, Danielle Monopoli, Dana Olesch,
and Kellie White. Furthermore, this project would not have been as successful without
the help of our extensive army of volunteers who assisted on this project. In particular, I
would like to give a special thanks to volunteers, David Rensch, Ron Pieper, Katie
Harris, and Sophia Farrulla for their time, energy, and efforts in assisting with this
project.
Finally I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support and
encouragement. I would also like to thank my beautiful wife. Lauren, you have stood by
my side throughout all portions of this time consuming project. For this I am eternally
grateful. Thank you always for listening to my musings, even if they didn’t make a whole
lot of sense. And thank you for loving me through and through in spite of the time we
were forced to spend apart while I was working on this project.
vi
Abstract of Thesis
Hallowed Ground, Sacred Place:
The Slave Cemetery At George Washington’s Mount Vernon
And the Cultural Landscapes of the Enslaved
This thesis focuses on the archaeological study of the Slave Cemetery at George
Washington’s Mount Vernon. Here, methodological and theoretical principles are
utilized to study the area that many enslaved workers call their final resting place.
Through the use of this space, it is hypothesized that Mount Vernon’s enslaved
community practiced distinct traditions, instilling in that spot a sense of place, and
reinforcing their individual and communal human identities. This thesis will also
investigate the cemetery within its broader regional and cultural contexts, to attain a
better understanding of the death rituals and culturally resistant activates that slaves at
Mount Vernon used in their day-to-day battle against the system that held them in
bondage.
vii
Table of Contents
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... iv Abstract of Thesis ....................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Site History ........................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1: Research Goals, Questions, and Methodology ........................................................ 8 Chapter 1: Thesis Organization ........................................................................................................ 12 Chapter 1: Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Works ........................................................................................... 16 Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 1: Theoretical Basis ............................................................................................................. 16 Chapter 1: The Plantation Landscape ............................................................................................ 17 Chapter 1: Resistance to Slavery ..................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 1: Landscape and Resistance ........................................................................................... 23 Chapter 1: Death and Mortuary Practices .................................................................................... 25 Chapter 1: Review of Comparative Archaeological Sites ....................................................... 34 Chapter 1: Monticello Park Cemetery, Charlottesville, VA ............................................... 34 Chapter 1: UVA African Burial Ground, Charlottesville, VA ............................................. 37 Chapter 1: Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery, Alexandria, VA .............................. 40 Chapter 1: Summary ............................................................................................................................. 44 Chapter 3: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery (44FX116)............................................................ 45 Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 1: Historical Research: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery ......................................... 45 Chapter 1: Oral History: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery ....................................................... 50 Chapter 1: Exploring the Wessynton Cemetery Through GIS .............................................. 58 Chapter 1: Geophysical Research: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery .................................... 64 Chapter 1: Previous Archaeological Research: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery ............ 66 Chapter 1: Summary ............................................................................................................................. 72 Chapter 4: Archaeological Methodology and Goals (44FX116) ........................................... 74 Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 74 Chapter 1: Research Questions and Goals .................................................................................... 74 Chapter 1: Depositional History ...................................................................................................... 77 Chapter 1: Excavation Strategy and Methodology .................................................................... 78 Chapter 1: Summary ............................................................................................................................. 83
viii
Chapter 5: Results of 2014 Fieldwork (44FX116) .................................................................... 84 Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 84 Chapter 1: Excavation Summary ..................................................................................................... 84 Chapter 1: Results.................................................................................................................................. 86 Chapter 1: Burial Features ................................................................................................................. 88 Chapter 1: 2014 Burial Features in Comparison to 1985 GPR Readings ......................... 96 Chapter 1: Selected Artifacts: Intaglio Glass Disk ..................................................................... 99 Chapter 1: Selected Artifacts: Copper Alloy Button .............................................................. 100 Chapter 1: Selected Artifacts: Multi-faceted Glass Bead ...................................................... 101 Chapter 1: Selected Artifacts: Prehistoric Artifacts ............................................................... 102 Chapter 1: Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 103 Chapter 1: Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 107 Chapter 6: Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 112 Chapter 1: Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 112 Chapter 1: Future Research ............................................................................................................ 114 References ................................................................................................................................................. 117 Appendix A: Grave Shafts found through Small Projects at 44FX116 ................................ 127 Appendix B: Letter from Department of Historic Resources ................................................. 129 Chapter 1:
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Location of George Washington’s Mount Vernon in Virginia ............................... 5
Figure 1.2. Image of 1929 Memorial Tablet....................................................................................... 6
Figure 1.3. Image of 1983 Memorial Archway ................................................................................. 7
Figure 1.4. Image of 1983 Slave Memorial Circle ............................................................................ 9
Figure 1.5. Map of George Washington’s Five Farms ................................................................... 14
Figure 2.1. “Midnight Slave Funeral” .................................................................................................. 30
Figure 2.2. “Plantation Burial” .............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 3.1. “Plan of Mount Vernon, The Home of Washington” ............................................... 50
Figure 3.2. Plat Showing Property of the MVLA (1931) ............................................................. 53
Figure 3.3. Map showing location of Wessynton Cemetery ...................................................... 55
Figure 3.4. Map showing location of 2000 and 2003 Woodland Lane site visit ................ 57
Figure 3.5. Map showing former location of Wessynton Cemetery ....................................... 59
Figure 3.6. Map showing Wessynton Cemetery location overlain on 1801 map .............. 60
Figure 3.7. Contour map of former Wessynton Cemetery site ................................................. 62
Figure 3.8. 1937 aerial photo overlain with location of Wessynton Cemetery ................. 63
Figure 3.9. 1944 tactical map overlain with location of Wessynton Cemetery ................. 63
Figure 3.10. North section of 1985 geophysical survey area .................................................... 65
Figure 3.11. South section of 1985 geophysical survey area .................................................... 65
Figure 3.12. North section of survey area with GPR readings and grave shafts ............... 68
Figure 3.13. South section of survey area with GPR readings and grave shafts ................ 69
Figure 3.14. Image of exposed grave shaft from 2007 excavation ......................................... 71
x
Figure 3.15. Image of Tree Hole #5 from 2008 excavation ....................................................... 72
Figure 3.16. Image of Test Unit 102 from 2012 excavation ...................................................... 73
Figure 4.1. Map showing archaeological area 44FX116 ............................................................. 75
Figure 4.2. Planning map showing survey area prior to excavations .................................... 80
Figure 4.3. Map showing placement of random 5 x 5 ft. test unit ........................................... 82
Figure 5.1. Map showing excavated test units from 2014 field season ................................ 85
Figure 5.2. Map showing 2014 excavation phases ........................................................................ 86
Figure 5.3. Map showing 2014 project area with discovered grave shafts ......................... 87
Figure 5.4. Image of main block in project area ............................................................................. 89
Figure 5.5. Map showing spatial layout and organization of graves ...................................... 90
Figure 5.6. Image of Grave Shaft 737D, looking west .................................................................. 91
Figure 5.7. Image of Grave Shaft 808D, looking northeast ........................................................ 92
Figure 5.8. Image of Grave Shafts 846F, 846E, and 884C ........................................................... 92
Figure 5.9. Image of southern block of project area ..................................................................... 93
Figure 5.10. Map showing 2014 grave shafts and 1985 GPR readings ................................. 97
Figure 5.11. Image of Grave Shaft 846D, looking southeast ...................................................... 98
Figure 5.12. Image of Grave Shaft 809C, looking west ................................................................ 98
Figure 5.13. Image of intaglio glass disk ........................................................................................... 99
Figure 5.14. Image of copper alloy button .................................................................................... 100
Figure 5.15. Image of multi-faceted glass bead ........................................................................... 101
Figure 5.16. Image of three prehistoric artifacts ........................................................................ 102
Figure 5.17. Map showing conjectured location of additional row of graves.................. 106
xi
List of Tables Table 3.1. Number of grave shafts identified through small projects ................................... 67
Table 5.1. Dimensions of all grave shafts exposed in 2014 survey ........................................ 95
Table A.1. Dimensions of all grave shafts exposed prior to 2014 field season ............... 128
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
In Director, Steve McQueen’s film adaptation of Solomon Northrup’s chilling and
poignant memoir, 12 Years A Slave, there is a scene in which Northrup, played by
Chiwetel Ejiofor, attends the funeral of a fellow enslaved field hand who dies of
exhaustion while working in the cotton fields of Edwin Epps. At twilight, likely
following the close of a day’s work, Northrup and a group of enslaved African
Americans congregate by the small cemetery that bears its most recent tenant. The
cemetery is enclosed by a rough-hewn fence, and inside its boundaries can be seen a
collection of individual burial mounds aligned in two short rows of no more than four
or five graves. At the head of each burial is a crude wooden or metal cross. The only
indication of the presence of Edwin Epps, the despotic owner of the plantation on which
Solomon Northrup now finds himself illegally enslaved, is the large plantation house
visible in the distance. Epps, himself, is nowhere to be seen, nor is any other white
person to be found in attendance at the humble funeral.
Led by an elderly woman at the procession, those gathered around the enclosed
sacred space begin to sing the spiritual, “Roll, Jordan, Roll.” The original version of the
song was introduced to members of the enslaved community in the early 19th century,
likely in an attempt to help convert those enslaved Africans to Christianity (Calt
2008:34). Like many aspects of European and Anglo American culture, however, the
song was adopted and transformed by enslaved African Americans, who instilled in it
new meaning and unique themes of hope in the face of oppression, and a longing to be
free (Powers 2013).
2
As the gathering of mourners in McQueen’s 12 Years A Slave continue to sing the
refrain of “Roll, Jordan, Roll,” focus is turned to Northrup, himself. At first reluctant to
join in the singing, Northrup soon becomes enveloped in the impassioned refrain: “Roll,
Jordan, roll! Roll, Jordan, roll! My soul arise in Heaven, Lord, for the year when Jordan
roll!” Ejiofor’s Northrup becomes more fervent with each recitation, looking to the
heavens before closing his eyes in an attempt to hold back tears from the swarm of
powerful emotions welling up inside of him. For Solomon Northrup, the funeral
ceremony is no longer about memorializing the latest victim of a wicked and oppressive
system of institutionalized slavery. Instead it has become an outward and communal
expression of grief, pain, solidarity, and empowerment, in which Northrup
acknowledges his inequitable demotion of status from human being to slave, but
refuses to accept it (Powers 2013).
Though this scene from McQueen’s 12 Years A Slave is a fabricated event
(Solomon Northrup makes no such mention of a funeral ceremony in his 1853 memoir),
it touches upon an important and often overlooked aspect of slave life in the colonial
and post-colonial United States. Forced to live out their lives in a world that constantly
reminded the enslaved of their subhuman status, the funerals and burial practices of
enslaved African Americans offered a small, but powerful opportunity for those
communities to express their solidarity with one another, and to observe distinct
cultural traditions that reinforced their identities as people, rather than slaves. Indeed,
“the significance of proper funerals for the slaves lay…in the extent to which they
allowed the participants to feel themselves a human community unto themselves”
(Genovese 1976:195, emphasis added).
3
Few documentary records exist that make note of the funerary practices of
enslaved communities in the 18th and 19th centuries. Those records that do exist are
often produced from outside the community in question by white observers, such as
slave owners and overseers. While these accounts are helpful in providing a window
through which to view a handful of these deeply personal events, they only allow
researchers a biased glimpse into the funerary practices of the enslaved community
through the eyes of white outsiders. We are left with a resultant window through which
to peer, rather than a door through which to walk through.
Further information has been lost to the ravages of time. Documents recording
the passing of individual slaves and the locations of plantation cemeteries on the
landscape were rarely kept. As a result, many of these unassuming resting spots have
been lost. Poorly marked grave sites in rural, wooded, and even urban areas are soon
covered over by brush and foliage if not regularly maintained. A number of these
cemeteries, either recently rediscovered or simply inconspicuously marked, have come
under threat of encroaching development (Belkin 1990; Hutchins 2013; Blanchard
2014; Cass 2014). Others, like the African Burial Ground in New York City (General
Services Administration 2009), and the Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery in
Alexandria, Virginia (Sipe 2011) have been reclaimed from developed areas after ample
public outcry and extensive archaeological survey following their rediscovery. An
unknown number other cemeteries have been lost to suburban sprawl and public
apathy.
As the number of these burial sites begins to dwindle, the clock is ticking for
researchers and preservationists to study these sacred places and implement plans to
4
ensure their sustained protection. Through archaeological research, many of these sites
can not only be identified, but respectfully studied to attain a greater understanding of
how enslaved African Americans perceived these spaces on the landscape.
Furthermore, these studies can shed light on how enslaved African Americans
participated in culturally distinct rituals to remember the dead, and reinforce a sense of
community in the face of a system bent on instilling ideas of subhuman inferiority.
Site History
This thesis focuses on the ongoing archaeological survey of site number
44FX116: the Slave Cemetery1 at George Washington’s Mount Vernon (FIGURE1.1).
Located on an outcrop of land overlooking the Potomac River, Mount Vernon’s Slave
Cemetery has been protected from encroaching suburban development by the Mount
Vernon Ladies’ Association (MVLA), along with roughly 500 acres of George
Washington’s extensive 8,000 acre plantation. All burials in the cemetery are unmarked,
and prior to initiating archaeological fieldwork, the locations of individual graves was
unknown.
Documentary evidence pertaining to the cemetery is scarce. The inscription on a
memorial tablet placed at the site in 1929 indicates that the Slave Cemetery was likely
to have been in use circa 1760 through circa 1860, however no evidence has been found
listing the beginning and end dates of the burial ground (MVLA 1929:46). West Ford (c.
1785-1863), a longtime servant of the Washington family who was freed in 1829 and
1 The official name for this burial ground, according to the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, is the Slave Cemetery. It is acknowledged, however, that enslaved and free people are potentially buried in this space. Furthermore, the scholarly consensus is that when referring to those in bondage, enslaved is the preferred term (General Services Administration 2009:10).
5
continued to work for the MVLA after they assumed control of the estate in 1860, is
believed to have been the last individual to be buried in the cemetery (Mary Thompson
2014, elec. comm.). It is also believed that William “Billy” Lee, Washington’s manservant
throughout the Revolutionary War, was interred on the site following his death in c.
1828 (Mary Thompson 2014, elec. comm.; Western Literary Messenger 1846). It is likely
that burials at Mount Vernon’s Slave Cemetery ceased at the end of the Civil War. This is
because many communities of formerly enslaved African Americans established their
own churches, with burial grounds, after emancipation. Burials soon became associated
with those cemeteries rather than longtime plantation slave burial grounds (Scott
Casper 2014, elec. comm.).
FIGURE 1.1: Location of George Washington’s Mount Vernon in Virginia.
Several documents record the existence of the cemetery in the years preceding
the Civil War, however by the turn of the 20th century most surface evidence of
individual burials appears to have disappeared. In 1928, the MVLA feared that all traces
of the cemetery would soon be gone and they placed a simple marker on the site in
6
1929 to commemorate the unmarked graves of the individuals interred there (MVLA
1928:75; MVLA 1929:46). The memorial read: “In Memory of the Many Faithful Colored
Servants of the Washington Family Buried at Mount Vernon from 1760-1860 Their
Unidentified Graves Surround This Spot” (FIGURE 1.2). Though the racially tinged
language of the memorial was itself a product of its time, the MVLA’s decision to
commemorate and honor the enslaved individuals who lived and died at Mount Vernon
was an incredibly progressive one at a time when racial relations in the United States
were at a significant low-point (MVLA 1929:46; Rees 2001:163).
FIGURE 1.2: Memorial tablet placed in the Slave Cemetery by the MVLA in 1929 (Photo by Karen Price).
7
FIGURE1.3: Brick archway heading contemporaneous brick-enclosed gravel path to 1983 Slave Memorial Circle.
By the 1980s, the cemetery site had become overgrown and the 1929 memorial
was lost amongst unchecked vegetation. The discovery of the neglected state of the
memorial spurred a 1982 column in The Washington Post (Gilliam 1982:B1) that drew
attention to the disregard of enslaved Africans at Mount Vernon. In the fall of 1982, a
competition was sponsored by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People and the Howard University School of Architecture and Planning to design a new,
more fitting memorial for the site. In 1983, a new memorial was built, consisting of a
8
brick archway (FIGURE 1.3) heading a brick-enclosed gravel path that led to a sunken
ring of three circles (FIGURE 1.4). On each circle were inscribed the words, “Faith,”
“Hope,” and “Love”. At the center of the memorial stood an incomplete column baring
the inscription, “In Memory of the Afro Americans Who Served as Slaves at Mount
Vernon, This Monument Marking Their Burial Ground Dedicated September 21, 1983,
Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association” (Sager 1982:VA11; McCombs 1983:E1-E2; Rees
2001:166-168; Casper 2008:221-223).
The Slave Cemetery site has been maintained ever since the construction of the
1983 slave memorial. However, little work has been done to advance an understanding
of the space and the individuals who are buried there. As a result of this short coming,
Mount Vernon archaeologists initiated a multiyear archaeological survey in the summer
of 2014 to find the locations of grave shafts on the landscape and the better understand
this space. This multi-year project hopes to reveal more information about the Slave
Cemetery by defining its boundaries and its individual burials in an overall effort to
commemorate and honor the people who call that spot their final resting place. In 2014,
20 burials were exposed and identified on the landscape just underneath topsoil. No
excavation of burials took place beyond what was necessary to delineate grave shafts
from their surrounding contexts.
Research Goals, Questions, and Methodology
In identifying grave shafts on the landscape, and studying the cemetery more
broadly in the plantation context, this project is guided by four research goals. First,
how many individuals are buried in the cemetery? Prior to the 2014 archaeological
9
survey, geophysical and historical research has suggested numbers ranging from fifty-
one to one-hundred-fifty possible burials in the cemetery. Archaeology is the only way
in which determine a true number.
FIGURE 1.4: 1983 Slave Memorial Circle with brick-lined gravel path to the left (Photo by Karen Price).
The second desired outcome of this project is to attain a better understanding of
the cemetery’s spatial organization. What are its boundaries? Are burials aligned in
rows, clusters, or some other pattern of organization? Is there any evidence that graves
were marked in some way? Are there any grave decorations associated with burials? By
identifying where burials are located within the cemetery and how they are arranged, it
is possible to both mitigate and prevent future impacts to the site was well as begin to
10
draw an understanding of how this space was perceived and used by the enslaved
community at Mount Vernon. Grave decorations are also a cultural tradition
documented in some African American cemeteries and the burial grounds used by
enslaved Africans, particularly in the South. This phenomena has been attributed to
certain West African practices and may represent a form of cultural resistance where
the customs of the homeland are preserved in spite of forced assimilation by the slave
system (Genovese 1976; Vlach 1990; King 2010). Furthermore, grave markers can hold
valuable information pertaining to the ways in which communities choose to
commemorate, or are able to commemorate their dead (Rainville 2014). This work
finds that currently there is no evidence to suggest the usage of grave markers or the
practice of decorating graves at the Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery. However, lack of
evidence at this stage does not necessarily mean that graves were not marked in some
way.
It has been observed in many African American cemeteries that burials are
oriented so that the head of the individual is pointed to the west (i.e. facing east) (Bon-
Harper et al 2003; Rivanna Archaeological Services 2013; Rainville 2014). This practice
has been attributed to both Christian tradition: that individuals should face east
towards the rising sun on the Day of Judgment, and West African traditions: that burials
should follow the path of the sun (King 2010). Regarding the cemetery’s spatial
patterning, some suggest that a cemetery exhibiting a more traditional organizational
pattern, such as burials aligned in rows and columns, may be an indication of a slave
owner that was particularly concerned with the spiritual well-being of his or her slaves
or the usage of that space. Conversely, if a cemetery is organized in a less traditional
11
pattern, the enslaved community may have had more autonomy with regard to
interment styles, and may have chosen a different layout or pattern for the cemetery
(Chapman et al 2006).
The third research goal of this project is to determine the efficacy of a 1985
geophysical survey conducted on the site. Using ground penetrating radar (GPR), this
survey detected over 51 subsurface anomalies that are likely grave shafts. Archaeology
will ground-truth the data collected from this survey and a comparison will be made
between results.
Another desired outcome of this project is to gain a better understanding of the
slave experience on the plantation landscape by identifying where these different
cemeteries may be. In its zenith, George Washington’s Mount Vernon consisted of five
separate but adjoining farms, each with their own work structures, slave quarters, and
likely cemeteries (FIGURE 1.5). Many of these cemeteries have since been lost and
credibly destroyed by the encroaching suburban sprawl that surrounds the present-day
estate. One such cemetery has been located through extensive documentary research,
and can now be plotted via Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in relation to the
current project area and Washington’s outlying farms. This provides an unparalleled
look into a small portion of a plantation landscape long since destroyed. Findings from
this research are presented in Chapter 3.
The main research question guiding this project involves how the Slave
Cemetery fit in to the perceived cultural landscapes of Mount Vernon’s enslaved and
free populations. Landscapes and structures are not static entities in the lives of those
who live in them, but are perceived in different ways by different people (Upton 1910;
12
Fesler 2010; Ginsburg 2010). Often times white owners and overseers would fail to
notice the intricacies of the constructed black landscape. This failure to understand
these nuances gave enslaved individuals and communities power over their oppressors
and allowed opportunities to manipulate the slave system. Knowing the landscape in a
different way than the white elite meant that slaves could carve out places where they
could culturally, and sometimes actively, resist their subjugators (Ginsburg 2010). The
cemetery space is one that would likely have held a vastly different meaning for
enslaved African Americans than it would have for whites. Without an understanding of
these multiple meanings, researchers cannot hope to cross the threshold and truly
understand the world the slaves lived and operated in. It is the goal of this work to
show that the Slave Cemetery at Mount Vernon was culturally and cognitively
constructed in the minds of enslaved African Americans who were able to instill in that
area a sense of place where those individuals could unite as communities and find
strength in one another to culturally resist their imposed, subhuman status.
Thesis Organization
The organization of this thesis is as follows. Chapter 2 is a literature review that
explores different conceptual elements crucial to an understanding of the uses,
perceptions, and meanings of cemetery sites by the enslaved population and others
who resided within the plantation system. The first section of Chapter 2 includes a
discussion on plantation landscapes, and how they are perceived by the different
people who passed through, and inhabited them. The second section of this chapter
discusses the mortuary practices and rituals surrounding death and burial in the slave
13
community. Finally, the third section of this chapter offers three examples of African
American cemetery sites in Virginia that have been archaeologically surveyed within
the last fifteen years, and that offer contextual, temporal, and regional points of
comparison to the Slave Cemetery at Mount Vernon: Monticello’s Park Cemetery (Bon
Harper et al. 2003), The University of Virginia’s African American Burial Ground
(Rivanna Archaeological Services 2013), and the Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery
in the City of Alexandria (Sipe 2011).
Chapter 3 provides contextual information necessary in order to understand the
current, ongoing archaeological survey taking place in the Mount Vernon Slave
Cemetery. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section presents the
findings of research through both historical sources and oral historical accounts. This
section also discusses the possible use of other cemeteries outside the current bounds
of the MVLA by Mount Vernon’s African American population during the 18th and 19th
centuries. The second section of this chapter discusses all previous archaeological
projects undertaken in 44FX116, The Slave Cemetery, prior to the commencement of
the current survey.
Chapter 4 discusses the archaeological methodology utilized at the Mount
Vernon Slave Cemetery, and the use of GIS to aid in planning and implementation of
those research methods. Chapter 5 discusses the results and findings of this survey,
with a particular focus on the spatial relationships of individual grave shafts. Analysis
and discussion are offered to interpret these findings through a phenomenological
perspective. The final chapter summarizes the results of this thesis and furnishes
suggestions for future research.
14
FIGURE 1.5: “A Map of General Washington’s Farm from a Drawing Transmitted by the General. Removed from Letter from His Excellency General George Washington to Arthur Young. London: W.L. & J.
Richardson, 1801.
15
Conclusion
This thesis seeks to evaluate and analyze the Slave Cemetery site at Mount
Vernon within its broader physical and cultural contexts. Building off previous studies
of slave resistance (Mintz 1995; Ginsburg 2010; Weik 2012), and the cultural landscape
(Upton 2010; Fesler 2010), this work discusses the ways in which cemeteries utilized
by the enslaved fit in to the perceived landscapes of those African Americans in
bondage by allowing opportunities for communal gathering and the practice of distinct
cultural traditions. As it was for Solomon Northrup in McQueen’s 12 Years A Slave, the
cemetery site, and the funerary ceremonies that took place there, were about much
more than simply burying the dead. By promoting community bonds and traditions at
these places through ceremonies, enslaved African Americans were able to overtly and
outwardly deny their enforced social positions as slaves, and reinforce their status as
human beings.
16
Chapter 2: Review of Relevant Works
Introduction
Plantation landscapes were deliberately organized by elites to convey explicit
messages of status and power. Enslaved African Americans, however, were not hapless
pawns in the face of these clear and directed messages. Many times, enslaved
populations were able to adapt and carve out portions of the landscape where they
were able to construct their own meanings and reinforce their individual human and
communal identities. This chapter begins with a review of plantation landscapes and
the mortuary practices of enslaved communities in the United States during the 18th
and 19th centuries. Finally, there will be an overview of three comparative cemetery
sites that have been studied archaeologically: Monticello’s Park Cemetery (Bon Harper
et al. 2003), The University of Virginia’s African American Burial Ground (Rivanna
Archaeological Services 2013), and the Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery in the City
of Alexandria (Sipe 2011).
Theoretical Basis
The phenomenological approach to the study of landscapes, stemming from
post-processual archaeology and Christopher Tilley’s A Phenomenology of Landscape
(1994) is applied here. The phenomenological approach seeks to understand how
individuals experienced and perceived their world through their bodily lenses. People
are both in the world and separate from it. Encased within their bodies, they must
perceive and mentally construct their environments (Pollio et al 1997). Not all peoples
17
perceive their environments in the same way. Each individual is aided in his or her
mental construction by life experiences, memories, emotions, and belief systems (Tilley
1994). Phenomenology, then, as defined by Matthew Johnson, is “the study of the
structures of human experience and consciousness” (Johnson 2012:272).
When applied to landscape archaeology, researchers seek to understand how
individuals and groups mitigated and manipulated their environments. The study of
cemeteries through phenomenological landscape studies is fitting, as “the location of a
cemetery and the layout and design of its material culture, such as boundaries, gates,
pathways, buildings, graves, and plantings, combine to form a richly constructed
cultural landscape” (Muller 2006:19). The dearth of information on the burial grounds,
and cultural landscape features of the enslaved provides an opportunity to test the
efficacy of phenomenological landscape studies in interpreting these spaces when they
are archaeologically explored.
The Plantation Landscape: Physically Constructed, Culturally Perceived
A variety of researchers have employed the basis of phenomenological theory on
plantation research (Ellis and Ginsburg 2010:6; Upton 2010; Fesler 2010:29). What is
agreed upon in all of these studies is that the plantation landscape was much more than
a utilitarian organization of fields, fences, and structures, but that it was viewed and
experienced differently by different parties. The constructed landscapes of colonial and
post-colonial America, particularly in the South, conveyed nuanced messages of status,
power, and inequality to the groups and individuals that inhabited them. The
construction of those landscapes was often directly governed by the ruling elite and
18
planter class in an attempt to structure their world in a way that would bring order to
nature, and place themselves at the focal point of historical impetus. James Deetz
(1996) defines this viewpoint, “Georgian,” a term most often used to describe the
popular architectural style utilized by elites in the mid to late-18th century in the
construction of their elaborate dwellings. More than simply an architectural trend, this
concept of order and control greatly influenced the thinking of the colonial elite, and
indeed constituted a new way of viewing the world where individuality and balance
were revered. This worldview was quickly reflected not only in the architecture of the
elite, but in their material culture and the way in which they structured their
landscapes as well (Deetz 1996:62-64).
An important component to the Georgian world-view was the emphasis on a
separation of man from nature. This dominant ideal in the 18th century is described by
Alan Gowens (1964:116-117) and holds that “the world has a basic immutable order,
that men by powers of reason can discover what that order is; and that, discovering it,
they can control the environment as they will.” These powers of control were reflected
in the ways elites structured their world, and by default, the ways in which enslaved
African Americans were forced to operate within those structures.
The specific ways in which elites organized their estates and households had
meaningful implications in terms of power and control, and were often an expression of
an individual owner’s tastes and values (Vlach 1993:1). These structures served as
subliminal reminders for both slaves, and those of lower social status, of their social
inferiority. According to Dell Upton (1990), space was organized and separated by elites
to delineate social barriers expressed in physical barriers. In Mount Airy, Virginia, for
19
example, the siting and architectural decoration of the ostentatious stone dwelling
“were manipulated carefully to make use of the principles of procession through
distance and elevation to distinguish among users of the complex and to impress upon
them John Tayloe’s centrality in Mount Airy’s microcosm” (Upton 1990:76). The
approach to Mount Airy passes a number of physical barriers such as fences, walls, and
terraces, each one representing the high watermark of a certain social class. The higher
the social standing of a visitor, the further along the approach one was allowed to travel
until one ultimately reached the entrance to the mansion itself. For Tayloe, these
barriers served to reinforce his importance within society. For the poor planter who
would have been unable to travel far through the set of barriers, it would have
reinforced his social inferiority (Upton 1990).
In a similar fashion, slave spaces were often separated by fence lines, walls, or
gates, and placed out of site of the entertaining spaces and living spaces of elites. In the
mansion house, separate, unadorned entrances and stairwells were put in place to
allow slaves to work but not be seen. These nuances had psychological implications
pertaining to the social roles that slaves filled. They were not in a world defined by their
own control, but rather in one defined by subjugation under others (Upton 1990).
This psychological impact can be seen in the ways enslaved individuals
perceived the landscape. Though there are virtually no documentary records produced
from within the enslaved community that record how those individuals viewed the
landscape, a picture can be painted with the help of accounts from white travelers and
visitors. Upton (2010) critically analyzes these accounts and notes the frustration of
white travelers when asking directions from enslaved workers. Interestingly, he notes
20
that the sense of a larger articulated network of space, as seen in the perceptions of the
elite, was missing from the slaves’ perception. “The slaves’ landscape was described
from the point of view as someone surrounded by other people’s power, and its
landmarks were plantation houses and fields differentiated by ownership” (Upton
2010:135). Though landscapes developed by white elites were perceived by them in a
way that represented a connected network, slaves instead viewed them as a series of
barriers that limited freedom of movement and autonomy.
Enslaved individuals were not merely cogs in the machine of violence and
control that was ubiquitous in the slavery system, however. In order to survive, slaves
found ways to construct their own perceived landscapes and subvert the ideologies
implicit in the white elite’s creation (Ginsburg 2010; Fesler 2010). This form of mental
resistance gave strength to individuals and communities, who were under constant
bombardment of negative messages aimed at dismantling their human identities.
Resistance to Slavery
Slave resistance can take many different forms, ranging from violent revolution
to small, day-to-day activities that upon first inspection would not appear to represent
resistance at all (Scott 1985). Violent resistance is the easiest to define and to see in the
historical record. News of dramatic slave uprisings such as the Haitian Revolution
(1791-1804) and Nat Turner’s Rebellion (1831) spread quickly across the United
States, sending shockwaves of panic throughout the nation. These climactic events were
a direct affront to the slave system, and the notion of slave docility and compliance,
severely undercutting the fantasy that was the slave owners’ reality.
21
With the exception of a small handful of these violent uprisings the majority of
these insurrections were quelled with equally intensive fervor, and examples were
made of those who perpetuated dissent. Terrance Wiek (2012) notes the diverse and
excessively brutal ways in which slavery regimes would respond to this type of violent
resistance:
“Dismemberment, burning alive, whipping, confinement in stocks, hanging, attachment to metal collars, branding, deportment, and sale away from family and friends are among the many types of punishments employed. The spectacles of torture and execution that made examples of conspirators and innocents following revolts greatly reduced open challenges to slavery and escape attempts” (Wiek 2012:22).
The perpetuators of the slave system often took excessively brutal measures to ensure
the continuation of that establishment. However, this did not put a stop to resistance
activity and ideology.
Resistance does not merely manifest itself in violent uprisings, but can take on
many different, less-discernable forms. Sidney Mintz (1995:12) argues that this overt
type of resistance only constituted a small fraction of the subversive activities
performed in the lives of enslaved individuals and communities. Indeed, resistance can
be performed at different levels and intensities, and possess different outcomes (Scott
1985). Forms of “passive” resistance, such as the breaking of farm implements, or the
setting of a slow work pace, likely abounded within the plantation slave system. The
difficultly posed by this form of resistance, according to Mintz (1995:14), “is precisely
that we must infer the will of the actor…if resistance is not violent, then we must divine
intentions, for they are not told to us, and we cannot prove them.”
In spite of this challenge, Mintz developed a tentative typology consisting of four
types of slave resistance. The first is violent resistance, in which the intent of the actor is
22
relatively clear. Striking an overseer or participating in armed revolt exemplifies this
form of resistance. The second type is nonviolent resistance, in which the intent of the
actor is more difficult to ascertain, however the consequences of his or her actions leads
us to believe that those actions were resistant in nature. The intentional breaking of
implements to avoid work is an example of nonviolent resistance. The third type is
nonviolent nonresistance, an act or action that may appear to be both accommodative
and resistant, and furthermore so subtle that it is difficult to tell what the intent of the
actor was. It becomes more difficult to detect this form of resistance because it appears
from the outside to be the same as nonviolent resistance. Accidentally breaking an
implement is a form of nonviolent nonresistance. In both cases an implement is broken,
however the intent was different. Finally, there is cultural resistance (Mintz 1995:14-
15). Like nonviolent resistance and nonviolent nonresistance, cultural resistance is
difficult to both define and detect, as the will of the actor or actors is not always clear.
Garret Fesler (2010:45) states that cultural resistance manifested itself any time
an enslaved person or group affirmed their identity as someone other than a slave.
Maintaining an individual and communal identity through beliefs, customs, and actions
exemplify this type of resistance. This was not always outwardly disadvantageous to the
plantation owner in the same way a broken tool would interfere with crop cultivation.
However, in a system that counted slaves merely as personal property, any belief in the
antithesis would not only help those in bondage to find strength in this overwhelmingly
oppressive system, but also threaten the underlying fabric of the system itself by
rejecting one of its core underlying convictions.
23
Landscape and Resistance
Despite strict limitations to the sovereignty of enslaved individuals, slaves found
numerous ways in which to create their own landscapes within the confines of the
plantation. John Vlach (1993:13) notes that the spaces predominantly occupied by
enslaved African Americans were “a domain that generally escaped much notice, mainly
because [they were] marked in ways that planters either considered insignificant or
could not recognize.” Though often under the careful observation and domination of
overseers and plantation owners, slaves were able to carve out secret places hidden in
the landscape, often in secret paths and trails. These spaces facilitated a place for
clandestine meetings and rituals, offering enslaved African Americans an opportunity to
resist their status as slaves and reinforce their own distinct cultural practices (Vlach
1993:13; Isaac 1999:52-53; Ginsburg 2010).
Forms of both “active” resistance, such as physical violence or running away, and
“passive” resistance, such as setting a slow work pace or breaking equipment necessary
to complete a task, abounded within the enslaved community. However, cultural
resistance, more than any other type of resistant behavior, offered slaves important
opportunities to develop and practice customs that reinforced their individual and
communal human identities. This type of culturally resistant behavior could manifest
itself in myriad ways in which white elites may not have detected or thought relevant.
The question of whether or not cultural resistance was intentional is unimportant.
Deliberately sneaking off in the night for a secret rendezvous, or unintentionally
preserving a cultural custom both have the same effect—one is still reinforcing his or
her identity as a human being rather than a slave.
24
The placement of the slave quarters on the plantation landscape, oftentimes
some distance from the big house, isolated the enslaved population from the watchful
eye of managers and elites, affording a limited degree of privacy. This privacy, though
by no means indefinite, afforded slaves a small semblance of refuge from the oppressive
world of plantation slavery where cultural practices could be perpetuated in secret.
Though the placement of these structures were oftentimes directed by the plantation
owner or farm manager out of convenience or an attempt to maintain a certain
aesthetic, slaves were able to manipulate this setting for their own benefit (Kolchin
2003:149; Wiek 2012:31). Examples can be seen in customs such as yard sweeping and
the digging of subfloor pits to store materials, or the preference of corporate, outdoor
spaces for social gatherings (Samford 2007; Fesler 2010). By studying these spaces and
by “encountering artifact patterns, landscape features, building foundations, and other
forms of archaeological evidence…archaeologists can begin to retrace how enslaved
people experienced the landscape and how they negotiated, fashioned, and adapted to
their setting” (Fesler 2010:30).
Slave funeral ceremonies often provided enslaved individuals with opportunities
to express forms of cultural resistance. Great emphasis was placed on these rites, for
they “provided occasions for marking key points of transition in the human experience
and assumed enormous symbolic importance” (Kolchin 2003:150). The specific
locations of plantation slave burial grounds were often chosen by the plantation owner
on lands that were ill-suited for agricultural development (Rainville 2014:49). In spite
of this, enslaved African Americans frequently “had control over funerary rituals,
commemorative devices such as headstones and footstones, the interment style and the
25
layout of individual burials within the cemetery” (Chapman et al. 2006:6). The degree to
which these forms of slave autonomy existed varies from place to place. Slave owners
who placed a greater emphasis on religious observance may have exerted more control
over the spiritual lives of their slaves, resulting in cemetery arrangements and burial
traditions more closely resembling European customs (Chapman et al. 2006; Rivanna
Archaeological Services 2013:24). More sporadic and seemingly unorganized spatial
distributions of graves may indicate higher levels of slave autonomy and possibly
correlate to a form of cultural resistance.
Death and Mortuary Practices
American archaeologists and anthropologists have placed an inordinate amount
of attention on mortuary practices. By focusing on the ways in which people in past
societies faced death and dying, researchers have been able to better understand
cultural and historical phenomena such as social organization (Braun 1979), ideology
(Hodder 1984; McGuire 1992), warfare (Ravesloot 1988), and more (Carr 1995:105-
106). Clifford Geertz notes that death “provokes in the survivors a duel response of love
and loathing, a deep-going emotional ambivalence of fascination and fear which
threatens both the psychological and social foundations of human existence” (Geertz
2000:162). In order to mitigate these complex and dualistic emotions, ceremonial
practices are implemented that serve to help survivors re-establish their morale
(Malinowski, quoted in Geertz 2000:162-163). Here, it is shown that the funerary
traditions of enslaved African Americans represented views on death distinct from
26
those of whites. These views, rooted in African traditions and mixed with New World
practices, represent a distinctly African American creation.
One major obstacle to the study of African American mortuary practices in the
Americas becomes evident when one attempts to find correlating customs on the
African continent. Little archaeological research focused on historic-period sites has
been conducted in African countries (see DeCorse 1992 for an exception). Instead, most
scholars prefer to focus on Africa’s prehistoric cultural heritage. Researchers of African
American and slave cultures, then, are forced to make broad generalizations when
referring to possible origins for certain customs, a practice that severely undermines
the research (Jamieson 1995:41). On occasion, more specific African cultures are
mentioned in conjunction with African American mortuary customs. For example,
Robert Farris Thompson links the practice of leaving grave decorations atop slave
graves in South Carolina and Georgia with the Bakongo of Northern Angola (Thompson
1969:149). This connection is relevant considering that a large number of African
slaves from the Angolan region arrived in America through Charleston, South Carolina
(Genovese 1976:200).
It becomes more difficult to trace culture groups from Africa that arrived in the
Americas, especially when their final destinations are further inland, far from their
ports of arrival (Rainville 2014:53). In Virginia, a large amount of slaves that arrived
from African were of the Ibo cultural group, though other groups included the
Kimbundu and Kikongo (Rainville 2014:53).The eclectic mix of cultures brought across
the Atlantic would undergo further shuffling when put on the auction block.
Furthermore, it was not long before direct memory of the African continent gave way to
27
a more hazy remembrance, as enslaved native Africans passed away, and their
American-born descendants were part of a distinctly new cultural amalgam.
Attitudes towards death and spirituality in the slave community were deeply
rooted in existing tradition and folk beliefs. Following the arrival of African slaves to
North America, many West African traditions were transmitted and mixed with Anglo-
Saxon, Celtic, and American traditions and beliefs through practice and song (King
2010:125; Gorn 1984:551). This amalgam of traditions, practices, and beliefs allowed
enslaved African Americans an opportunity to observe distinct cultural practices in the
New World (Jamieson 1995:39). Though variety existed among the many West African
customs and religions that came to the New World, most shared a common belief in a
spirit life after death, and ancestral worship (King 2010:126; Rainville 2014:53-54). A
belief in the survival of the soul after death was the cornerstone of the burial practices
and rituals of the enslaved community. It was believed that spirits could influence the
world of the living in very direct ways, and many traditional practices were set in place
to appease and guide the spirit to the afterlife. Only after the proper ritual requirements
were satisfied would the lingering spirit depart for the spirit world (Rainville 2014:54).
Rituals surrounding death would begin shortly after the deceased breathed his
or her last breath. Though oftentimes delayed by the workday imposed upon them by
overseers and plantation owners, enslaved African Americans began the burial process
by preparing, or “settin’ up” with the body. This process often took place at nighttime
once the workday was completed, and simultaneously served to protect the body from
scavenging animals, as well as watch over the deceased and keep his or her spirit
company as it departed the body (Genovese 1976:198-199; Thomas 2008:113;
28
Rainville 2014:54-55). This time would often be accompanied by prayer, song, and the
consumption of food, and it allowed members of the enslaved community an
opportunity to reinforce their distinct cultural and communal bonds (Thomas
2008:113; Rainville 2014:55). Throughout this process, the body would be cleaned and
wrapped in cloth before being placed on a cooling board to stave decomposition. During
the warmer months, rapid decomposition would necessitate a quick burial, which often
took place the following evening (Thomas 2008:114; Rainville 2014:54-55).
News of the death of a member of the enslaved community would travel quickly
through a vast and complex communication network. Enslaved African Americans were
often forced to live separate lives from their families on neighboring or distant
plantations. News of a recent death would travel from plantation to plantation through
slaves on foot or by boat, as well as through the use of drums (Thomas 2008:112;
Rainville 2014:55). It sometimes took the enslaved community weeks to assemble for
the funeral of a deceased member. A second funeral ceremony would often be held at
the burial site after the sun set when others were able to attend from visiting
plantations. This further provided the enslaved community a chance to strengthen
familial and communal ties that extended beyond the property boundaries of a single
plantation. Because of this, funerals were often “celebratory reunions among the living
as well as remembrances of the dead” (Rainville 2014:55).
The funeral ceremony itself would often be held after dark. This practice can be
traced to certain African mortuary rituals, where burial ceremonies were held at night,
but was also likely a practical necessity to allow members from neighboring plantations
to attend after the workday was completed (Journal of American Folklore 1894:318-
29
319; Genovese 1976:197; Thomas 2008:114; Rainville 2014:57). The body of the
deceased would have been carried to the burial ground in a torch-lit procession, with an
officiant or minister leading the way (FIGURE 2.1). Genovese writes that these ministers
were often African Americans, and were preferentially favored by the enslaved
community. As funerary gatherings were sometimes looked upon with suspicion by the
white elite, however, restrictions were often placed on these black ministers, and
therefore white preachers were also known to conduct slave funerals. If a minister
could not be obtained, a respected member of the enslaved community would have led
the procession and ceremony (Genovese 1976:199). During the procession, the remains
would likely have been carried in a coffin constructed specifically for that individual,
though if materials were unavailable to build a coffin, a shroud would have been used
(Rainville 2014:56).
Following a sermon, the minister would lead the enslaved community in a series
of spirituals or songs (FIGURE 2.2). Some have described scenes of African American
burials as similar to those of a pageant: “A negro funeral without an uproar, without
shouts and groans, without fainting women and shouting men, without pictures of
triumphant death beds…was no funeral at all” (Hatcher 1908:38). As the body of the
deceased was laid into the ground, those present would sometimes lay hands on the
coffin or throw a handful of dirt atop the grave. A dance would sometimes be initiated
in a circle around the grave site, guided by spirituals and drums (The Journal of
American Folklore 1894:318; Thomas 2008:115; Rainville 2014:58, 61). These practices
further allowed enslaved African Americans a way in which to remember and preserve
distinct cultural traits unique to the enslaved community.
30
FIGURE 2.1: "Midnight Slave Funeral,” Hamilton Pierson, In the Brush; or, Old-time social, political, and religious life in the Southwest (New York, 1881), facing p. 284. Image Reference NW0177, as shown on
www.slaveryimages.org, compiled by Jerome Handler and Michael Tuite, and sponsored by the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and the University of Virginia Library."
After an individual had been buried, grave offerings and decorations were
sometimes placed atop the burial mound to adorn the grave site. Grave offerings and
decorations took many different forms. The practice is linked to West and West-
Central-African traditions and has been explained as decorative objects that “cryptically
honor the spirit in the earth, guide it to the other world, and prevent it from wandering
or returning to haunt survivors” (Thompson 1983:132). Oftentimes the last object
touched by the deceased individual before expiring was broken and placed on the
31
grave. These objects were believed to hold remnants of the previous owner’s power and
were broken to prevent the spirit of the dead from returning in search of the object
(Thompson 1983:134; Vlach 1990:141; Rainville 2014:61). Ceramics, glassware, and
utensils have all been used in this capacity as grave decorations, oftentimes being
perforated or broken to prevent their use. The intentional breaking of objects is
believed to symbolize the destruction of the body by death and can be linked to some
North Angolan cultural practices (Genovese 1976:200-201). Some West-African
traditions hold that spirits still experience hunger and thirst after death. Families and
survivors would often provide food and water offerings during and after burials to
satisfy the deceased and prevent their return (Genovese 1976:198; King 2010:132).
FIGURE 2.2: "Plantation Burial,” John Antrobus, ca. 1860, (Historical New Orleans Collection). Image Reference NW0179, as shown on www.slaveryimages.org, compiled by Jerome Handler and Michael
Tuite, and sponsored by the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and the University of Virginia Library."
32
The color white also held spiritual significance in some West African traditions,
symbolizing purity, the world of spirits, and the dead. White shells were often placed
atop graves as they were considered symbols of immortality and water (King 2010:128;
Sipe 2011). The use of shells and the representation of water echoes certain beliefs that
the spirit world is located underwater, but can also be attributed to a metaphoric
crossing over to the spirit world, or even be in reference to the ocean-crossing required
to return to Africa (Vlach 1990:143; Rainville 2014:61). The organization of shells on
particular grave sites varies: some graves have been recorded as being outlined with
shells, others have been completely covered, and others still have depicted designs
(King 2010:128).
The spatial layout of cemeteries and the cardinal orientation of individual graves
may also speak to various beliefs about the afterlife. Various slave cemeteries have
exhibited different patterns of grave orientation, though the majority of burials in
cemeteries appear to be aligned east-west (Bon-Harper et al. 2003; Sipe 2011; RAS
2013; Rainville 2009, 2014). The east-west orientation of burials in some African
American cemeteries may speak to West African traditions where burial alignments
follow the rising and setting of the sun. However, Christian tradition also orients burials
east-west in order to witness the coming of Christ on judgment day (King 2010:132).
Another explanation for this burial pattern is that individuals were interred facing east
towards Africa (Rainville 2014:64). This explanation would seem to be supported by
the many instances in which death was perceived as the way in which one returned
home to the African continent (Ball 1837:265; Parrinder 1970:107; Genovese
1976:198), though this admittedly seems a farfetched explanation. Based on these
33
similarities, it is difficult to determine if an east-west pattern of grave orientation in a
particular cemetery follows West African tradition, Christian tradition, an amalgam of
both traditions, or perhaps neither tradition. Another pattern of burial organization
witnessed is group clusters. Burial grounds that exemplify seemingly haphazard
organization may in fact be organized in groups based on familial ties, age, sex, or social
status (Rainville 2009:69).
Headstones and footstones are another form of grave identification that can
convey useful information to researchers about burials and grave sites. Unless
commissioned by the slave owner, very rarely were formal inscribed headstones used
to denote the burial plots of the enslaved. This is likely a result of high illiteracy among
the enslaved population. Even if an enslaved individual was literate and able to carve an
epitaph on a fieldstone, it would mean exposing oneself as a slave who had the ability to
read and write in a time and place where literacy among those in bondage was a
punishable offence (Rainville 2014:2). Many times in slave cemetery sites, rough,
uninscribed fieldstones, or simple iron or stone sculptures were used to mark either the
head, foot, or both ends of a burial. This has been seen in sites were archaeological
surveys have been conducted such as Monticello’s Park Cemetery (Bon-Harper et al.
2003), and the University of Virginia’s servants’ cemetery (RAS 2013), as well as
numerous other sites studied through simple surface survey (Rainville 2009, 2014;
Chapman et al. 2006; Vlach 1990). Despite the presence of some sort of permanent
marker on a handful of grave sites, the majority of African American slave graves were
either marked with non-permanent materials, or were not marked at all, resulting in
little to no evidence on the surface of the grave’s existence other than possible ground
34
depressions resulting from the deterioration of coffins and the settling of redeposited
soils (Chapman et al. 2006).
Review of Pertinent Comparative Archaeological Sites
A handful of slave and freedmen cemeteries have been studied over the years.
Many of those sites were analyzed using geophysical methods only (Yerka and Brock
2009; Yerka 2010; Bigman 2014), while others were fully excavated and individuals
disinterred in archaeological recovery and mitigation projects (Thomas et al. 1977;
Davidson 1999; RAS 2013; Sipe 2011). The most famous archaeological site of this type
is the African Burial Ground in New York City, excavated and analyzed from 1991-2006.
In this seminal and politically charged project, the remains of more than four hundred
African slaves buried in colonial New York were exhumed and studied by scientists at
Howard University, providing an unparalleled look into the burial practices and the
lives of the enslaved in a northern urban context (Blakey 2010; General Services
Administration 2009). Three African American burial ground archaeological projects
that share many regional and contextual similarities to Mount Vernon’s Slave Cemetery
survey are Monticello’s Park Cemetery project (Bon Harper et al. 2003), The University
of Virginia’s Cemetery ‘H’ Expansion project (RAS 2013), and the City of Alexandria’s
Contrabands and Freedmen’s Cemetery project (Sipe 2014).
Comparative Research: Monticello Park Cemetery, 2000
Thomas Jefferson established his iconic Monticello plantation on 5,000 acres in
Albemarle County, Virginia. Documentary evidence indicates that Jefferson chose the
35
location for the Park as a burial place for both his slaves and for members of his own
family, however he later revised his plan and established a family cemetery elsewhere
on the estate (Bon-Harper et al. 2003:4). Researchers believe the cemetery itself to be a
Jefferson-era feature, used from the early 1770s to the time of Jefferson’s death in 1826.
No evidence of dwellings or structures have been found in close proximity to the
cemetery, suggesting its use as a communal burial ground rather than the site of a
family cemetery. The location of the Park Cemetery away from dwellings mimics the
central locations of slave cemeteries at other Virginia plantations such as Mount Vernon
and Kingsmill (Fesler 2000), and adds to the belief that these were communally-used
cemeteries rather than family plots (Bon-Harper et al. 2003:9).
Archaeologists at Monticello used remote sensing and surface mapping
techniques in 1990 and 2000 to survey the Park Cemetery site. Oblong ground
depressions could be discerned on the surface of the site, suggesting the location of
individual interments where top soils had sunken following the collapse of coffin lids.
Surface mapping recorded these features as well as stones, trees, and tree stumps in the
area. GPR detected a number of subsurface anomalies in areas marked by ground
depressions as well as areas where surface disturbance was not evident. Likewise, GPR
was not successful in detecting subsurface anomalies in some depressed areas (Bon-
Harper et al. 2003:11-13).
In 2000, excavations were conducted in the Park Cemetery to determine the
presence or absence of graves. No graves were exhumed, and excavations ceased once a
delineation between a grave shaft and the surrounding soil could be observed. Twenty-
four 5 x 5 ft. test units were excavated to reveal the outlines of grave shafts. Twenty
36
grave shafts were identified, of these, ten were adults, eight were children, and two
were insufficiently exposed to make a determination with regards to age. The
determination of age was based solely on the size of exposed grave shafts (Bon-Harper
et al. 2003:13). The placement of test units was designed to test various surface
conditions and areas suspected of containing burials. Archaeologists found that oblong,
east-west oriented depressions consistently corresponded with burials. Furthermore,
seven graves were discovered that did not correlate to ground depressions, indicating
that some graves do not leave surface indications (Bon-Harper et al. 2003:14). It was
discovered that five of the burials were marked by fieldstones: three burials were
marked by headstones and footstones, one burial was marked by a headstone only, and
one burial was marked by a footstone only. All fieldstones discovered were tabular and
unmarked (Bon-Harper et al. 2003:17).
Monticello archaeologists utilized two methods to estimate the total number of
burials in the Park Cemetery. The first method was to determine a minimum and
maximum number of burials. A minimum was reached by adding the total number of
confirmed burials (20) to the number of unexcavated oblong ground depressions (17),
producing a minimum number of 37. A maximum was determined by multiplying an
estimate of the total area of the cemetery by the mean density of burials known from
excavation (Bon-Harper et al. 2003:17). From this method it was determined that the
Park Cemetery contained somewhere between 37 and 134 burials. The second method
employed by the archaeologists at Monticello was to divide the quadrants within the
suspected boundary of the cemetery into two groups: those that contain ground
depressions, and those that do not. Two separate estimates were then computed of the
37
mean number of burials per quadrant, one for each of the two categorized quadrant
types. These estimates allowed archaeologists to project the expected number of burials
associated with unexcavated quadrants both with and without ground depressions.
From this method researchers were able to determine that the most likely number of
burials in the cemetery was 71, and that there was a 90% chance that the cemetery
contained between 42 and 100 burials (Bon-Harper et al. 2003:18).
Comparative Research: University of Virginia Cemetery Expansion Project, 2012
Another meaningful comparative study of a burial ground for enslaved
individuals took place just six miles from Monticello at the University of Virginia in
2012. In 2011, the University asked Rivanna Archaeological Services, a Charlottesville-
based CRM firm, to assess the impact of a proposed expansion to the university
cemetery. The expansion involved the installation of crypts and the construction of a
new stone wall in the project area which was located north of and abutting the existing
cemetery boundary. Archaeologists conducted a Phase I survey of the project area and
supervised the mechanical excavation of fill deposits down to historic grade. Once these
layers were removed, the exposed project area measured roughly 75 x 175 ft. and
contained 67 previously unidentified burial shafts (RAS 2013:iii).
The cemetery itself was established in 1828, and the space was formally
enclosed a year later by a stone wall. Over the years, the cemetery was expanded
several times to provide more burial plots for students, faculty, and staff. In 1862, the
university enclosed a 200 x 228 ft. area west of the original 1828 cemetery for the
purpose of burying Confederate soldiers who had died at the school while it served as a
38
hospital. The final expansion was added in 1940 with the enclosing of a 100 x 200 ft.
space north of the Confederate cemetery expansion (RAS 2013:7-12).
Few records exist pertaining to the deaths, let alone the interments of enslaved
African Americans at the University Cemetery. A handful of late nineteenth-century
references indicate that deceased slaves were buried north of, and outside the
University Cemetery. Other references suggest that slaves were interred in coffins
provided by their owners (RAS 2013:22). The practice of secret burials was also often
conducted by many African Americans, where false graves would be excavated in
known cemeteries, and logs interred in the graves to fool cadaver hunters and grave
robbers. The actual burial would take place elsewhere at a secret location, thereby
protecting the body of the deceased from desecration (RAS 2013:25-28).
Following a Phase I survey of the project area, and the mechanical removal of
topsoil and fill deposits, archaeologists could identify 67 burial shafts. A total of 160
artifacts were recovered during mechanical excavation, however due to the nature of
this method, the artifacts were stripped of their contextual information (RAS 2003:36).
Fifty-six percent of recovered artifacts were ceramics. The use of ceramics as grave
decorations can be speculated, but without contextual information it is impossible to
make a determination one way or another. One piece of slate and one piece of white
quartzite sandstone were discovered that appeared to show signs of modification.
These have been interpreted as fragments of grave markers, however no writing or
inscription could be identified on either piece (RAS 2003:37).
Sixty-four of the 67 identified grave shafts were oriented east-west, while three
grave shafts were oriented northeast-southwest. The two distinct patterns of spatial
39
organization that could be discerned were rows and small clusters. Eight rows
consisting of anywhere between three to eleven burials, and six clusters consisting of
two to three burials each made up the identified interments. Eight grave shafts
contained an in situ stone marker; six of these markers were fieldstones, likely procured
locally. Two of the markers were made of white quartzite sandstone and were placed at
the head or western end of each grave. One grave shaft was overlain by a number of
vertically set fieldstones. This phenomena is likely an indication of cultural activity,
however archaeologists are uncertain if these stones were placed in the fill of a
legitimate grave or if they represent a “fake” burial meant to fool potential grave
robbers (RAS 2003:58). Based on their size, 21 burial features have been interpreted as
adult burials, while 15 have been interpreted as child/youth graves. The age-range of
the remaining 31 burials were inconclusive either because the grave shafts were only
partially exposed or their relative size produced an ambiguous indication of age.
RAS was able to determine that the previously unknown graves were most likely
from the enslaved population at the University of Virginia by analyzing documentary
sources and by the fact that these burials were placed outside the historical boundaries
of the university cemetery. The arrangement of graves in organized rows facing east-
west suggests that burials were conducted in accordance with Christian tradition. By
this time, many African Americans practiced Christian beliefs, however it is unclear how
much autonomy slaves had in the burial of their dead or the mortuary practices they
used. One account of a slave owner burying a recently deceased slave in a nearby
cemetery insisted that his servant receive a proper Christian burial (RAS 2003:24). This
seems to indicate that, in this particular case, the way in which the enslaved person was
40
interred was the decision of the master rather than that of the enslaved African
American community. On the other hand, the practice of secret and “fake” burials seems
to indicate that some slaves did in fact have a degree of autonomy in the burial of their
dead. There was likely a large degree of variability depending on the beliefs of the
owner and the enslaved community in question.
Comparative Research: City of Alexandria Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery, 2007
The City of Alexandria in northern Virginia is located nine miles from George
Washington’s home at Mount Vernon. During the Civil War, the town was held under
Union control and became a safe haven for runaway slaves vying for their freedom.
These individuals were dispassionately referred to as “contrabands,” and it was not
long before the city became inundated with people seeking freedom from slavery.
Cramped quarters and unsanitary conditions led to rampant spread of disease among
the contraband and freedmen community, resulting in numerous deaths and the need
for a segregated space to bury the dead. Property confiscated from a Confederate
sympathizer became the resting place for over 1,500 of these individuals in a cemetery
that would soon fall into disrepair, be sold, paved over, and forgotten (Sipe 2011).
By 2000, the cemetery site had been developed with a gas station and office
building standing on the lot at the corner of South Washington St and Church St. A
remote sensing investigation was conducted in 1996 with the goal of assessing the
potential for grave shafts beneath the gas station property. Surveyors used GPR and
electro-magnetic studies to maximize the amount of data that could be gleaned under
the conditions of surface disturbance at the site. Remote sensing detected numerous
41
anomalies related to the infrastructure of the gas station, however, of particular interest
were the areas in the back of the station that contained columns of undisturbed soil in a
series of eight to ten rows. The regularity of these anomalies suggested the presence of
burial shafts (Sipe 2011).
In 1998, a geophysical survey was conducted on land owned by the Virginia
Department of Transportation, just south of the previously surveyed area. This survey
detected one anomaly in a grassy area in the western portion of the property. Though
the geophysical survey in the eastern portion of the property did not reveal any
anomalies, observation of intact soils via surface inspection along with the GPR results
from the previous geophysical survey suggested that this area may contain graves (Sipe
2011:192). Excavations were conducted in this area in 1999 to discern the western and
southern boundaries of the cemetery. Forty-nine grave shafts were identified in the
area south of the gas station. The dimensions of these grave shafts ranged in size
approximately one to two feet by three to seven feet, suggesting the interment of both
children and adults (Sipe 2011:196). Archaeologists uncovered a handful of artifacts
associated with burials. Though no human remains were disturbed, nails and small
white buttons were among the artifacts likely associated with graves that were
recovered. Some of these artifacts were left in situ, while others were reburied where
they were found after they had been recorded and documented. Possible coffin remains
were identified in another grave shaft where grading from the construction of I-495 in
1960 had stripped a large amount of topsoil from the site (Sipe 2011:197). Twenty-nine
more grave shafts were identified just east of this area on land owned by the City of
Alexandria, a total of 78 grave shafts in all.
42
Further excavations were conducted by the City of Alexandria in 2004 to explore
the subsurface integrity of the site and to define the extent of burials. Fourteen trenches
were placed across the site, first opened mechanically before being completed by hand.
Forty-five additional grave shafts were found as a result of the 2004 excavation. No
evidence of grave shafts could be found in five of the fourteen trenches. Instead, these
areas seemed to indicate that a large amount of graves had been obliterated by grading
in preparation for the construction of the gas station, office building, and installation of
utilities (Sipe 2011:222).
In 2007 the gas station and office building were demolished to make way for
subsequent archaeological excavation and commemoration of the site. The goals of this
investigation were to monitor the removal of paved surfaces across the site, to identify
grave shafts, and to ensure that a buffer layer of fill no less than two feet in thickness be
deposited on top of identified grave shafts to protect those features (Sipe 2011:225). As
a result of the 2007 excavations, 534 new graves were discovered, bringing the total
number of graves located in the Contraband and Freedmen Cemetery to 612. Most of
these burials were oriented east-west forming neat, north-south lines down the site.
Portions of at least forty rows were identified across the site (Sipe 2011:479).
Due to extensive grading in portions of the site from the construction and
development on the gas station and office building, many graves were destroyed and
others were nearly unearthed. As a result, once fill deposits had been removed, coffin
shapes could sometimes be clearly discerned and additional coffin hardware could be
seen. Of the discernable coffin outlines, most coffins appeared to be hexagonal in shape,
however a handful of rectangular coffins were also found. Fragments of coffin wood
43
could be seen in twenty interments and coffin hardware including nails, coffin screws
or tacks, decorative lid hinges and/or coffin handles could be found in forty grave shaft
features (Sipe 2011:479-80). All coffin materials and hardware that could be associated
with particular grave shaft features were photographed, recorded, and left in situ.
Grave decorations at the site could only be positively associated with one burial
feature, however evidence of potential grave adornment may have been found
elsewhere. It is possible that the significant grading of the site may have destroyed any
evidence of grave decorations in other portions of the project area. During the 2004
excavations, archaeologists uncovered fragments of an aqua-colored glass canning jar at
the base of a buried surface stratum. Though these artifacts could not be associated
with a specific grave, they may indicate the practice of grave decoration at the site.
More suggestive evidence was found in 2007 when archaeologists discovered a total of
78 oyster shells spread across multiple graves (Sipe 2011:501-02). No more than three
or four oyster shells were found across the remainder of the site. This heavy and
localized concentration of shells may indicate cultural activity related to the leaving of
grave decorations atop burials. The use of oyster shells as grave decorations in African
American cemeteries is a practice seen at other sites across Virginia and the
southeastern United States that may reflect the survival of certain West African burial
traditions (Rainville 2009:73 Vlach 1990:143).
In September of 2014, the Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery Memorial was
officially dedicated, and the names of each person known to be buried there read aloud
to gathered descendants, researchers, and community members (Samuels 2014). This
project serves as an example of the important and meaningful results attained through
44
extensive multi-disciplinary research in the recognition and preservation of these
African American cemetery sites. All too often destroyed by suburban development, the
Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery is a reminder of the need to continue this line of
research so that these important stories are not forgotten, but are preserved for
generations to come.
Summary
The plantation landscape was carefully tailored by its owner to convey messages
of domination over nature, and display the owner’s social importance. Though enslaved
African Americans were forced to operate within these landscapes, they were able to
perceive and manipulate them in such a way as to make them their own. These
perceived landscapes presented enslaved African Americans with places that were
often unrecognizable to their white overseers and elites, where practices and traditions
distinct to the enslaved community could be fostered and maintained. The cemeteries
used by these bondsmen and women were places where the enslaved community could
reinforce their individual and corporate identities as human beings, rather than as
property, by observing an amalgam of distinct burial practices and customs in
commemorating their dead. The following chapter discusses the Mount Vernon Slave
Cemetery, and analyzes its cultural, spatial, and temporal contexts in an effort to
understand how this space was integrated into the plantation landscape of the
enslaved.
45
Chapter 3: Contexts of the Slave Cemetery at Mount Vernon
Introduction
This chapter will assess and analyze the historical, oral historical, and previous
archaeological data concerning the Slave Cemetery at Mount Vernon in an effort to
understand how this space fit into the perceived landscapes of Mount Vernon’s African
American population. Furthermore, the possibility of additional burial grounds utilized
by enslaved African Americans across Washington’s extensive 8,000 acre plantation
will be explored. One of these potential burial grounds, the Wessynton Cemetery, will
be analyzed in detail with the use of geospatial analysis, aerial photography, and
historic-period maps. In so doing, it is possible to begin to reconstruct these portions of
Mount Vernon’s eighteenth and nineteenth century plantation landscapes that went
unobserved or unrecorded by the Washington family and their white overseers. This
chapter will conclude with a summary of the geophysical and archaeological work that
has been completed in the Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery as of 2012, prior to the start
of the 2014 full-scale archaeological survey.
Historical Research: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery
Little historical documentation of Mount Vernon’s Slave Cemetery exists. Slave
life, beyond the labor those individuals provided, was rarely considered worth
recording by plantation owners and managers; the writings of Washington, his
overseers, and the subsequent executors of the estate prove no different. Though
Washington was meticulous in recording the work and progress of his estate, no list of
46
slave deaths or slave burials at Mount Vernon appears to have ever been made, or has
ever been found. Likewise, the subsequent owners of the estate were even less rigorous
in recording pertinent details to the estate’s operation, let alone the details of slave life
and death. Though it seems that slave burials at Mount Vernon were never explicitly
recorded, it is still possible to paint a very fragmentary picture of the cemetery and the
deaths of slaves from a number of sources.
Mount Vernon’s overseers and managers from the five farms were required to
produce reports that would be compiled into a weekly summary by the plantation
manager. These reports detailed the overall workings of the plantation, as well as
served to log the work and activities performed by enslaved African Americans. In so
doing, managers inadvertently recorded a number of deaths by documenting the work
of carpenters on the plantation as they built coffins for the recently deceased (The
Tomb black notebook:n.d). Though these brief accounts go no further in providing
details of the subsequent burials of these individuals, they do show that some
individuals were interred in coffins rather than shrouds and that coffins were being
produced on site. Research done to date suggests that the earliest documented instance
of a coffin being made for a slave (Jenny at Dogue Run Farm) was in December of 1790
(Whitting 1790). One instance each occurs in 1792 and 1794 (Whitting 1792; Pearce
1794). Five coffins were made in 1797 to bury children and adults (Anderson 1797).
A handful of visitor accounts from some of the many guests that spent time at
Mount Vernon mention the cemetery space in more detail. In an 1833 journal account,
Caroline Moore, a visitor to Mount Vernon, noted seeing the burying place of
Washington’s slaves (Lee 2006:139):
47
“Our guide first took us to the tomb where the remains of General Washington are now interred. They were removed from the old tomb about 3 years since… Near his Tomb, you see the burying place of his slaves, containing 150 graves. We then walked to the Old tomb, which is situated on the Bank of the Potomac; it is in a very ruinous condition.”
It is unclear if the 150 graves was an estimate based on brief observation or a more
reliable, calculated number. However, this account shows that graves in the cemetery
could be discerned from the surrounding landscape in 1833.
An anonymous visitor in 1838, just five years later, also mentions the cemetery
space just south of Washington’s new tomb (The Rhetorical Reader 1838:162):
“As we were standing upon this spot, a couple of spaniels came bounding along, and following close, was an old servant of the family, and formerly a slave of Washington. On examining him, we found he was born on the place, and recollected his master, and all he said with great distinctness. He was a very aged negro, and quite gray.
I found there was something to be gathered from this ancient of the family--and accordingly, as I stood leaning upon the broken gate, which swung before the door of the old tomb, put him in the train, by a few questions. "In front of the new grave--place, yonder," said he, lie buried a hundred people of colour." These it seemed, were slaves of the plantation, who from time to time had died here. He spoke of the great kindness of Washington, and his emancipating a hundred of his people . . . . Passing from one thing to another without much connexion [sic], he went on to say, referring to Washington--"I never see that man laugh to show his teeth--he done all his laughing inside. This I thought worth a page of description."
Unlike the account of Caroline Moore, who documents viewing the cemetery herself,
this account notes the cemetery second hand through an interview of a former enslaved
individual. Of particular interest is the mention of how many individuals are interred in
the burial ground: “a hundred people of colour” (The Rhetorical Reader 1838:162).
Though it is likely that this number was merely a generalization, it is interesting to note
48
in comparison to Moore’s stated number of 150 graves just five years prior. Both of
these numbers indicate that there exists a large amount of burials in the Slave
Cemetery. Archaeological and geophysical research conducted on the site, which will be
discussed later in this thesis, suggests that this number range of 100-150 burials may in
fact be accurate.
An undisclosed visitor account published in the Western Literary Messenger in
1846 provides a more intimate description of the cemetery, and notes the completion of
a recent burial there:
“Observing some servants busy in a little grove, in front of the new tomb, we went thither.
They were enclosing with a paling a grave very neatly sodded, and some sweet briar was still clinging to its native turf upon it. It was the grave of a favorite servant, an aged colored woman, whose good and amiable character had won respect and regard.—“When did she die?” we enquired. “She parted from us last Sunday,” was the reply.
There are many graves in the grove, and one of the servants pointed out that of Washington’s favorite servant, who was with him in his campaigns, fulfilling his simple duties faithfully and affectionately. The spot is not forgotten, though the tramp of passing years has leveled the little mound. Nor was the humble cemetery a mournful spot: the birds were singing merrily in the trees, and the hand of Spring was molding the wild flower, and training vines over the graves” (Western Literary Messenger 1846:201).
These brief paragraphs provide a fascinating, albeit rosy-colored, insight into the
cemetery space in 1846. First, a recently enclosed grave is described as being
surrounded with a paling, or a small fence. Additionally, the cemetery is depicted as a
humble grove containing many graves, suggesting either that surface evidence of the
purported 150 graves seen in 1833 had diminished in 13 years’ time, or perhaps
Caroline Moore’s previous recollection was merely hyperbolic. This is supported by the
condition of the grave of “Washington’s favorite servant” whose burial mound had been
49
leveled with “the tramp of passing years”. The slaves who drew attention to this grave
may have been referring to William “Billy” Lee, who accompanied Washington
throughout the Revolutionary War and is believed to have died circa 1828. If this is the
case, then the grave itself is roughly only 18 years old by the time of this account,
suggesting a fairly rapid deterioration of surface evidence since the time it was
enclosed. However, the slaves who drew attention to this grave may have been catering
to white romanticized versions of the past and the idea of the doting faithful and noble
servant. This trend can be seen in the roles other enslaved African Americans and
employees at Mount Vernon played as it grew to become a national shrine, and a
romanticized white perception of the past became ever more engrained (Casper 2009).
The only historic map identifying the cemetery was published by Currier and
Ives in 1855 (FIGURE 3.1). The “Negro Burying Ground,” as it is labeled, can be seen just
southwest of Washington’s New Tomb, built in 1831, in a section of woodland. The
image shows the cemetery to be enclosed, presumably with a fence, and containing 12
burials divided into two neat rows running east-west. The individual burials appear to
be oriented north-south. It is likely that the image used by Currier and Ives is merely a
representation of the site rather than a true depiction of the area, as evidence from
other sources and previous research seem to indicate that a much larger number of
individuals are interred in the cemetery.
50
FIGURE 3.1: “Plan of Mount Vernon, The Home of Washington,” Published by Currier and Ives, 1855. First known map documenting the Slave Cemetery”. Red outlines added. (Mount Vernon Ladies’
Association).
Oral History: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery
Oral history accounts can provide another level of insight into the use and
appearance of the cemetery. In a 1947 interview, Wilford Neitzey, Artie Petit, and Jessie
Duvall, Mount Vernon employees who installed the 1929 memorial tablet on the ridge
51
containing the cemetery, recalled “seeing mounds of dirt about and rough stones that
might be markers for slave graves.” In addition, Petit remembered a man named George
Ford who was working at Mount Vernon around the time the memorial tablet was being
installed. Ford explained how he had been born in the room above the spinning house
and that both his mother and father were buried on the hill where the memorial was
being placed. Ford also related that there had once been a rail fence enclosing the
burying ground before Harrison Dodge, Superintendent of Mount Vernon from 1885-
1937, had it taken down (Slave and Slave Quarters black notebook:n.d.). This evidence
gives credence to the Currier and Ives depiction of the cemetery as being enclosed with
a fence.
Further oral histories speak to the potential bounds of the Slave Cemetery, as
well as the other burial grounds likely used across Washington’s five farms for the
interment of Mount Vernon’s African American population before and after his death in
1799. The exact bounds of the Slave Cemetery located on the Mansion House Farm are
unknown, but it is generally accepted that African American burials are located solely
on the ridge southwest of Washington’s New Tomb. Dr. Judith Burton, however, notes
that the boundaries of the cemetery may extend northeast in the direction of
Washington’s Old Tomb, which was in use for the interment of Washington family
members until 1831 (Mary Thompson 2014, elec. comm). Dr. Burton’s memories raise
the possibility that burials may surround the Old Tomb, in a similar fashion to how
several Washington family members and the Slave Cemetery are located in proximity to
the New Tomb. The locating of slave burial grounds in propinquity to the family
cemetery or vault is not uncommon. Thomas Jefferson originally intended the Park
52
Cemetery utilized by several members of the enslaved population at Monticello to be
the resting place for his family as well, though he later established his family cemetery
elsewhere on the estate (Bon-Harper et al. 2003:2). Other plantation owners would
sometimes incorporate the slave burial ground with the family cemetery, though slave
graves were often segregated and relegated to a corner of the cemetery (Rainville
2014:14).
It is likely that this cemetery located near the New Tomb was only one of a
number of burial grounds associated with Mount Vernon’s African American population
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is hypothesized that Washington’s
outlying farms might all have contained burial plots, although there is little evidence to
support this. The black notebooks found in the Fred W. Smith National Library for the
Study of George Washington, at Mount Vernon, compile references and oral accounts
regarding several areas surrounding Mount Vernon where African Americans were
believed to be buried, though none of these locations were explicitly stated (The Tomb
black notebook:n.d.; Slaves and Slave Quarters black notebook:n.d.).
The Tomb black notebook references a “Burial ground of servants,” a half mile
from Mount Vernon on land adjacent to MVLA property owned by the Tucker heirs
(Mrs. Tucker was a daughter of John Augustine Washington III and inherited land along
Route 235 North). The Tucker estate is shown on “Plat Showing Property of Mount
Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union, August 1931,” (FIGURE 3.2) although there is
no indication of a cemetery.
53
FIGURE 3.2: Plat Showing Property of Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union, August 1931. Note the Beverly Tucker Estate north of the MVLA land holdings (Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).
54
Notes were made from a visit to a slave burial ground on December 8, 1947 by
two Mount Vernon employees identified by the initials WB and IW. These employees
are believed to be Worth Bailey and Irene Warren, Mount Vernon library researchers at
the time (Mary Thompson 2014 pers. comm). During their visit to the cemetery, Bailey
and Warren interviewed a Park policeman by the name of Mr. Freeman. They noted
seeing 25 – 30 graves including one standing tombstone, “Nathan Johnson 1885,” and a
flat tombstone, “Margaretta Johnson 1820,” as well as numerous broken and flat stones
covered with leaves. Bailey records having stepped in a hole “nearly up to his knee”
dug by neighborhood boys to see what was there. Mr. Freeman recalled seeing a funeral
there attended by African Americans for a man named Johnson, and suggested that the
stones may have come from the Alexandria-based, Chauncey stone cutting firm. He
further remembered seeing another stone bearing the name, “Blackburn,” and
mentioned that the cemetery had been enclosed with a fence not long ago (MVLA 1947).
Another note in this file references a “colored burying ground where colored
people named Johnson are buried,” located near, “where Dick Napier lives,” and
mentions the presence of stones there dating before 1792 (MVLA 1947). Census
records note a Richard Napper living in proximity to Route 235, and lists his occupation
as a gardener at Mount Vernon in 1940 (U.S. Census 1940). A 1944 tactical map of Fort
Belvoir and the surrounding vicinity records a “Naper” living in the area of Gum Springs
near the intersection of Route 235 and Route 1, roughly two miles north of Mount
Vernon. This may suggest that another African American cemetery related to Mount
Vernon exists in the vicinity of Gum Springs.
55
FIGURE 3.3: Map showing the location of the Wessynton Cemetery in relation to the Mansion House and Archaeological Site 44FX116 Slave Cemetery (Map by author).
During the summer of 1967, The U.S. Plywood Corporation, in partnership with
Miller & Smith Associates as the Wessynton Joint Venture, asked the Fairfax County
Circuit Court for permission to remove bodies from a cemetery located just northeast of
the present-day intersection of Cunningham Drive and Mansion Farm Place, in advance
of logging and the construction of the Wessynton housing development (Circuit Court of
56
Fairfax County 1967a) (FIGURE 3.3). Articles in The Washington Post (1967:A9), The
Fairfax Herald (1967:4) and Fairfax City Times (1967:23) advertised the intent to
remove the bodies. On October 13, 1967 permission was granted to the Wessynton
Joint Venture by the Circuit Court of Fairfax County to remove any remains found in the
cemetery to a plot in the Fairfax City Public Cemetery (Circuit Court of Fairfax County
1967b). On October 17, a permit for the disinterment, transit, and reinterment of three
unknown graves was granted to the Everly Funeral Home in Fairfax City to remove any
existing remains from the Wessynton tract (Commonwealth of Virginia 1967). The
following month, the remains from this cemetery were reinterred in a plot in the Fairfax
City Public Cemetery, purchased by the Wessynton Joint Venture (Fairfax Cemetery
Records 1967).2 The original location of the Wessynton Cemetery prior to its removal
corresponds with the likely location for the cemetery referenced by the Tucker heirs
and also the one visited by MVLA staff and Mr. Freeman in 1947.
Mount Vernon archaeologists visited a home on Woodland Lane in a
neighborhood near the estate on September 23, 2000, and January 9, 2003 (FIGURE
3.4). A resident contacted Mount Vernon regarding the alleged discovery of burials
many years earlier by his elderly neighbor when she was a child, who believed the
remains to have been relocated and reinterred at a memorial site at Mount Vernon. A
stand of bamboo to the west of the home is where oral history suggests the bodies were
originally buried (MVLA 2000). There are no known records of any human remains
being removed and reburied at Mount Vernon. An article in The Washington Post
(Diggins 1965:B6) reports the Smithsonian Institution removed several African
2 Disinterred remains from the cemetery located on the Wessynton tract were reburied in Lot #352A, Section 2, Site #1, in the Fairfax City Public Cemetery (Fairfax Cemetery Records 1967).
57
American graves from property associated with the Mason family along Telegraph Rd.
prior to construction and development. This story may have been a source for the
information given regarding graves linked with Mount Vernon’s African American
population.
FIGURE 3.4: Map showing location of 2000 and 2003 Woodland Lane site visit in relation to the Wessynton Cemetery, the Mount Vernon Mansion House, and Archaeological Site 44FX116 Slave
Cemetery (Map by author).
58
These notes suggest that there is strong evidence for a cemetery associated with
Mount Vernon’s African American population in the Wessynton development, which
was removed in November 1967. Furthermore, the proximity of the cemetery to MVLA
property as well as property owned by the National Park Service make this burial
ground a likely location for the 1947 site visit and interview with Park policeman, Mr.
Freeman, by Worth Baily and Irene Warren. Evidence is much weaker for the presence
of another cemetery on Woodland Lane. The story reported by the Washington Post
regarding burials related to the Mason family (Diggins 1965:B6) may have been
intermingled with oral history concerning the Wessynton Cemetery, especially since the
informant for this story was relaying information secondhand from another resident.
Exploring the Wessynton Cemetery through the use of Geospatial Information Systems
Disinterred in the fall of 1967 ahead of a major housing development project, the
Wessynton Cemetery was located on a prominent hill on what was once the northern
boundary of George Washington’s Mansion House Farm. The Washington Post
(1967:A9) and the Fairfax City Times (1967:23) ran articles announcing the intent to
relocate the graves to another location if relatives of the deceased did not claim the
remains within ten days. Walter Densmore, assistant director of Mount Vernon at the
time, is cited as indicating the remains to likely be those of Washington’s slaves. In their
Bill of Complaint to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, the Wessynton Joint
Venture included a description of the cemetery to be moved, as well as a survey of the
tract that delineated the burial ground. It goes on to record that there were visible signs
59
of the burial ground on the surface in the form of ground depressions, however no
headstones or markers were present (Circuit Court of Fairfax County 1967a).
FIGURE 3.5: Map showing former location of Wessynton Cemetery near the present day intersection of Cunningham Dr. and Mansion Farm Pl. (Map by author).
By integrating the provided land survey delineating the burial ground into GIS, it
was possible to locate the former position of the cemetery on the modern day landscape
(FIGURE 3.5). Furthermore, by applying historic period maps to this new information, it
is possible to reconstruct a portion of Mount Vernon’s African American landscape that
had been lost to neglect, development, and the ravages of time. After georeferencing the
land survey showing the cemetery that was included in the Wessynton Joint Venture’s
60
FIGURE 3.6: Map showing location of Wessynton Cemetery in relation to the Mansion House and Archaeological Site 44FX116 Slave Cemetery overlain on 1801 map of Mount Vernon’s five farms.
Bill of Complaint, it was possible to overlay this information on to an historic period
map of George Washington’s five farms, published in 1801 (FIGURE 3.6). The portion of
the map that is focused on in this thesis depicts the Mansion House Farm, with the
locations of the Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery, the Mansion House, and the Wessynton
Cemetery clearly marked. Northwest of the Mansion, a dotted line indicating a lesser
61
road comes to a fork, with the eastern split leading towards Little Hunting Creek. This
road passes directly by the Wessynton Cemetery, which was located in a wooded
section at the northern boundary of the Mansion House Farm. Much further removed
from the core of Mount Vernon, this space would have provided an extended level of
privacy for the practice of rituals and evening burials where enslaved African
Americans could commune together and honor their dead.
Through GIS, historic maps, and aerial photography, it was possible to examine
the site of the Wessynton Cemetery as it existed before it was relocated in 1967. Figure
3.7 shows the Wessynton Cemetery overlain by a digital contour map of the area. Just to
the east of the given boundaries of the cemetery, the land falls away dramatically in a
steep decline. This is in accordance with the 1947 site visit in which stones were
described as being uprooted and thrown down a hill. Figure 3.8 depicts an aerial
photograph of the site from 1937. The natural drop-off can be seen to the east of the
cemetery by the shadows of vegetation. In addition to this drop off, two minor roads
can be seen in proximity to the site immediately adjacent to the cemetery. The two
roads come together to form a single road before intersecting with Route 235 to the
west. Upon splitting, the first road continues in the direction of the George Washington
Memorial Parkway before abruptly cutting off. The second of the two roads veers north
and runs just north and west of the Wessynton Cemetery, less than 100 feet away,
following the crest of the hill before coming to a dead end at the hill’s point. These roads
were prominent enough to be included in a 1944 tactical map of the area by the Army
Corp of Engineers, where they can be seen in more clarity (FIGURE 3.9), though the
cemetery remains unidentified.
62
FIGURE 3.7: Contour Map showing former location of Wessynton Cemetery. Note the steep drop-off to the east of the cemetery (map by author).
The proximity of these dirt roads to the cemetery suggests that the burial ground
itself was likely a known landmark in the community. Furthermore, that these roads are
included on the 1944 tactical map suggests that the area was traversed well enough to
warrant their inclusion. If indeed this was the site of the 1947 visit and interview with
Park Policeman, Mr. Freeman, then physical evidence of the cemetery, including stone
markers, were in existence at this time.
More work needs to be done concerning the history and use of the Wessynton
Cemetery. Both oral history and documentary research can aid in uncovering more
information on this space. However, through the use of GIS, researchers have the ability
to peel back the layers of time that have long obscured disenfranchised spaces such as
63
FIGURE 3.8: 1937 aerial photograph overlain with the location of the Wessynton Cemetery.
FIGURE 3.9: 1944 tactical map overlain with the location of the Wessynton Cemetery
64
these (Armstrong et. al. 2009; Thomas and Ayers 2003). Incorporating geospatial
resources with historic maps and photographs allows us to see the landscape as it once
was, and helps to provoke thought on how these spaces were used and perceived by the
people who utilized them.
Geophysical Research: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery
A geophysical survey of the Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery was conducted in
January of 1985 by Bruce Bevan that revealed the possible locations of at least 51
potential graves. Due to time and equipment limitations, the survey covered only two
portions of the project area: a 70 x 100 ft. area just west of the 1983 slave memorial
pathway (north section) (FIGURE 3.10), and a 120 x 80 ft. area just south of the
memorial itself (south section) (FIGURE 3.11). Areas east of the 1983 Slave Memorial
pathway, and further north towards the memorial archway were not surveyed. The
entire survey area was explored using GPR, while additional tests were made over
portions of these areas with a magnetometer and resistivity meter (Bevan 1985).
Numerous subsurface anomalies were detected with GPR in both survey
sections. While some anomalies may be refilled pits dating to the Native American
occupation of the site, or other kinds of ground disturbances, Bevan interpreted many
of these readings to be grave excavations due to their suggested sizes and shapes. Radar
echoes were recorded at depths ranging from as little as 1.25 feet deep to as much as
6.25 feet deep with varying degrees of reliability. GPR in the north section of the survey
area produced 30 reliable readings and six less-reliable readings, suggesting the
presence of at least 30 potential burials in this area. One of these echoes, with a depth of
65
FIG
UR
E 3
.11
: So
uth
sec
tio
n o
f 1
98
5 g
eop
hy
sica
l su
rvey
dep
icti
ng
th
e lo
cati
on
s an
d d
epth
s o
f p
oss
ible
gra
ve
shaf
ts (
Bev
an 1
98
5:F
igu
re7
8).
FIG
UR
E 3
.10
: No
rth
sec
tio
n o
f 1
98
5 g
eop
hy
sica
l su
rvey
dep
icti
ng
th
e lo
cati
on
s an
d d
epth
s o
f p
oss
ible
gra
ve
shaf
ts (
Bev
an 1
98
5:F
igu
re 7
3).
66
2.5 feet, is located underneath the 1983 memorial pathway. Likewise, GPR in the south
section of the survey area produced 21 reliable readings and nine less reliable readings.
Geological strata in this section of the project area were evident, according to Bevan,
which may have affected the reliability of some readings. While the spatial orientation
of these features cannot be determined for certain until they are ground-truthed, the
results of the radar survey suggest that a number of potential burials are aligned east-
west (Bevan 1985).
The geophysical survey also detected a number of other surface and subsurface
features. In both survey areas, an extensive tree survey was conducted which
documented the precise locations and sizes of all trees on the site over two inches in
diameter. In the north survey section, an anomaly that Bevan interpreted as a buried
former pathway was detected running parallel to a portion of the 1983 memorial
pathway. Bits of iron from flower memorial stands were also found superficially and at
shallow depths by an audio-indicating magnetometer. Those bits that were below the
surface were left in place and accounted for. In the south section of the survey area, an
unusually complex soil strata was detected near the surface that Bevan interpreted as a
possible grave or debris-filled pit (Bevan 1985). Ground-truthing these anomalies and
revisiting their interpretations is one goal for this archaeological investigation.
Previous Archaeological Research: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery
There have been four previous archaeological investigations in various portions
of the cemetery (FIGURE 3.12) (FIGURE 3.13). All excavations were conducted in order
to mitigate future maintenance and development of the site. In all, eight potential grave
67
shafts have been discovered as a result of these excavations (TABLE 3.1). No grave
shafts were excavated and no human remains were disinterred. All grave shafts were
recorded at their highest possible elevation before being reburied (Appendix A).
Year Number of Grave Shafts Identified 1994 3 2007 1 2008 2 2012 2
Total 8
TABLE 3.1: Number of Grave Shafts identified through Small Projects at 44FX116.
In August of 1994, Mount Vernon planned the installation of a post-and-rail
fence to enclose the cemetery and to prevent visitors from accessing the steep hill on
the southern end of the site. The intended locations of fence posts were marked with
pin flags and archaeologists tested those areas for subsurface features, specifically
grave shafts. A total of 43 shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated and three possible
grave shafts were identified just south of the 1983 memorial in STPs 19, 21, and 22.
STPs 19 and 21 were excavated further to reveal the horizontal extent of the graves
which were subsequently mapped and photographed. The grave shaft in STP 22 was
identified without further excavation and was documented before being reburied. The
decision was made to alter the fence design by installing post-and-rail fence segments
in STPs 1-14 and 27-41. Two new fence posts were excavated (14A, and 27A) in order
to accommodate a stacked fence that would span the gap south of the 1983 memorial.
STPs 15-26, were backfilled as they did not contain any cultural features. Artifacts from
this excavation consisted of a small assemblage of prehistoric material (White 1994).
68
FIGURE 3.12: North Section of Survey area showing grave shafts discovered through small projects in relation to 1985 GPR readings (map by author).
In June of 2007, the brick archway located at the entrance of the 1983 slave
memorial pathway was failing. Archaeologists were asked to expose the foundations of
the archway to explore the problem in detail. A total of two, 3 x 5 ft. test units (100 and
101) were excavated to expose the foundations on the eastern side of each arch footer.
69
The majority of test unit 101 was comprised of soils related to the construction of the
archway and contained a few prehistoric lithic materials. Test unit 100 contained a
substantial amount of lithic material (including flakes, debitage, and broken projectile
points) as well as a feature comprised of similar mottled soils to the grave shafts
discovered in 1994 (Breen 2007a).
FIGURE 3.13: South Section of Survey area showing grave shafts discovered through small projects in relation to 1985 GPR readings (map by author).
70
This unit was expanded in July of 2007, exposing a potential grave shaft
measuring six feet long and two feet wide (FIGURE 3.14). The wider end of the grave
shaft is oriented to the northwest, suggesting that the head of the burial is in this
direction, and feet are to the southeast. The burial has been hypothesized as a shroud-
style burial of a smaller or skinnier individual. At the conclusion of excavation, the
burial was re-covered with soil and four nails were placed in the ground to show the
outline of the feature. A significant quantity of lithic materials were found scattered in
the expanded test unit around the burial, suggesting the presence of a camp or worksite
of Native American occupation (Breen 2007b).
In January of 2008 Mount Vernon proposed to plant five trees in two clusters,
one located near the New Tomb, the other located roughly 30-40 feet from the slave
memorial archway. Archaeologists excavated holes for the proposed trees to determine
if any grave shafts were present in those locations. A mottled soil was identified in Tree
Hole 4 that resembled the mottled soil found in grave shafts from the 1994 and 2007
excavations. This hole was expanded and a very straight line could be traced between
the mottled and natural soils, indicating a potential grave shaft (FIGURE 3.15). Further
expansion of the unit revealed a suspected corner of the shaft. The potential grave shaft
was covered with plastic and reburied, and the extent of the excavated area was
marked with pink pin flags. The Grounds crew was directed not to plant at that location.
A similar feature was discovered in Tree Hole 5 but this unit was not extensively
expanded. A line could be drawn between mottled and natural soils in the unit, but was
much less clear than the line drawn in Tree Hole 4. A portion of the feature appeared to
be previously impacted, probably from the planting of a tree. This feature was
71
interpreted as a potential grave shaft and was covered with plastic, backfilled, and
marked with pink pin flags (Breckenridge 2008).
FIGURE 3.14: Exposed grave shaft from 2007 excavations of the 1983 memorial archway, facing northwest (Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).
In March of 2012, poor water drainage in the slave memorial pathway prompted
Mount Vernon to explore the possibility of installing a new drainage system.
Archaeologists excavated one 10 x 10 ft. test unit (102) to determine the depth of the
gravel in the pathway, if any features were present, and the feasibility of adding a new
drain. The upper layers of unit 102 consisted mostly of deposits related to the
construction of the 1983 slave memorial. Underneath these upper layers archaeologists
discovered a prehistoric occupation layer that, when cleaned off, revealed two potential
72
burials (102G and 102H) protruding from the North and East walls of the test unit
(FIGURE 3.16)(Pecoraro 2012).
FIGURE 3.15: Tree Hole #4, portion of exposed grave shaft from 2008 proposed tree hole excavations (Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).
Summary
Through a use of documentary sources, historic maps, oral histories, and
archaeology, an increased level of insight into the usage and appearance of the Slave
Cemetery at Mount Vernon has been attained. Furthermore, when these resources are
combined and integrated with GIS, new perspectives can be ascertained regarding the
landscapes of the past. By placing the lost Wessynton Cemetery back onto the
73
landscape, researchers are better able to understand the components of the terrain, and
begin to see the historic plantation landscape through the eyes of those enslaved
individuals who inhabited it. Mount Vernon, like many other 18th and 19th century
plantations, contained nuanced and obscured spaces on the landscape that often went
unobserved by the white elite, but were integral in the lives of enslaved African
Americans. The Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery and the Wessynton Cemetery where just
such spaces, and an understanding of those areas and their integration into the greater
plantation landscape will aid in furthering our understanding of plantation life for the
enslaved.
FIGURE 3.16: Test Unit 102 from 2012 excavation, facing southwest, revealing two grave shafts protruding from northeast and southeast walls (102G, 102H) (Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association).
74
Chapter 4: Research Methodology and Goals: Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery Survey
Introduction
Archaeological site 44FX116, the Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery, is located on a
natural ridge southwest of George Washington’s New Tomb, overlooking the Potomac
River (Figure 4.1) Washington was originally buried in the family vault at Mount
Vernon, a small tomb built into a hillside overlooking the Potomac. In 1831, his body
was relocated to its current spot in the New Tomb, a structure that was built to
Washington’s the specifications made before his death in 1799. Previous archaeological
research, combined with documentary and oral historical research strongly suggests
that the area just south of this New Tomb was the location of a burial ground used by
enslaved African Americans at Mount Vernon during the Washington family tenure
(1735-1860). This chapter outlines the research questions and methodologies used for
the archaeological survey of this area and the subsequent analysis of results.
Research Questions and Goals
The primary goal of the 2014 field season was to document features associated
with the Slave Cemetery, with a particular focus on determining the number of extant
burials. Further research questions pertained to the spatial layout of the cemetery, with
an emphasis on ascertaining the orientations of, and spatial relationships between the
graves themselves, as well as identifying the boundaries of the cemetery and any
evidence of a fence that enclosed the burial ground space. Based on the lengths of
exposed grave shafts, it was also possible to conjecture if an interment held a child or an
75
adult burial. This information was helpful when interpreting the demographic make-up
of the cemetery. Excavations also had the potential to reveal if fieldstones or any kind of
semi-permanent grave markers were used to demarcate burials, though it is possible
such markers have since been removed. Furthermore, excavations could also produce
evidence of grave decorations or offerings. This information could hold implications
pertaining to cultural attitudes towards death and behavior associated with grave
visitation and commemoration by Mount Vernon’s enslaved population.
FIGURE 4.1: Map showing the location of Archaeological Area 44FX116 in relation to the Mansion House
at George Washington’s Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon, Virginia (Map by author).
76
The data from this survey has been utilized in two ways. First, it serves as the
basis of archaeological and landscape analysis to better understand how enslaved
African Americans at Mount Vernon used and perceived this space. Second, a
knowledge of grave locations allows Mount Vernon to become better stewards of the
site, ensuring the protection of those grave features from unnecessary destruction in
the event that Operations and Maintenance and/or Horticulture crews are required to
perform any excavations in preparation for the instillation of utility lines or tree
plantings. The identification and mapping of grave shaft features also allows
researchers to direct those departments where they may, and may not, impact the
subsurface integrity of the site.
Research during the 2014 field season was focused on the area just south of the
1983 Slave Memorial circle, beyond the stacked fence, constructed in 1994. This area
encompassed a portion of the south section of Bruce Bevan’s 1985 geophysical survey
that detected 30 subsurface anomalies, interpreted by Bevan to be potential grave
shafts. Twenty-one of these readings were considered “reliable,” while nine readings
were considered “less reliable.” (Bevan 1985). This area was prioritized for the 2014
field season as it is believed to be the southernmost point of the cemetery where the
natural ridge comes to a narrow drop-off on its eastern, southern, and western sides.
Subsequent field seasons intend to explore other areas of the ridge, further north
towards, alongside, and beyond the 1929 and 1983 Slave Memorials.
77
Depositional History
The depositional history of Site 44FX116 is believed to be quite uniform due to
minimal man-made build-up of soil on the site. As a result of the site’s location away
from much of the underground infrastructure located throughout the Mount Vernon
estate, non-burial related cultural intrusions are believed to be nominal. However, areas
immediately adjacent to the 1983 memorial are likely to have been heavily impacted by
its construction. In the 2012 Slave Memorial Path Project, roughly one foot of topsoil
and fill material related to the memorial’s construction overlaid the occupation layer
containing burial shafts 102G and 102H (Pecoraro 2012).
All artifacts uncovered from the four previous small archaeological projects that
have taken place in the cemetery have either been modern (20th century) or
prehistoric in nature. No artifacts that can be interpreted as grave decorations have
been found, and nothing diagnostic has been discovered that could help identify the
relative dates of individual interments. It is hypothesized that a large number of
modern artifacts will be found in areas near both the 1929 and 1983 memorial. These
artifacts will likely be related to the construction of the memorials or items dropped by
visitors and covered over time. Judging by the large quantity of prehistoric material
found thus far at the site it was deemed likely that more would be found as the survey
proceeded. The apparent heavy distribution of prehistoric artifacts found at the
cemetery site likely indicate frequent use and occupation by prehistoric and Native
American populations.
78
Excavation Strategy and Methodology
The author served as Crew Chief of excavations throughout the 2014 field season
at Site 44FX116. Fieldwork took place from May 30th to October 31st on each Friday and
Saturday, and was conducted largely with the assistance of volunteer excavators, whom
the Crew Chief was in charge of organizing, scheduling, coordinating, and leading
throughout the project. Such an extensive project cannot be undertaken by one
individual alone, however, and the author was assisted in leadership, excavation, and
mapping efforts by Mount Vernon staff members, Dr. Eleanor Breen, Deputy Director of
Archaeology, Luke Pecoraro, Assistant Director of Archaeological Research, Karen Price,
Archaeological Laboratory Manager, Leah Stricker, Laboratory and Field Technician,
and Eric Benson, GIS Manager.
Prior to the removal of any topsoil from the site, the geophysical map produced
by Bruce Bevan in 1985 was georeferenced into ESRI’s ArcGIS. The suspected locations
and orientations of potential graves indicated on the geophysical map were traced into
GIS to create a digital reading of the 1985 survey results. All previous archaeological
small projects that have taken place at Site 44FX116 were also analyzed and
georeferenced (see FIGURE 3.12 and FIGURE 3.13 in the previous chapter). The small
projects completed in 2007 and 2012 were easily integrated into a digital site map in
relation to the 1985 GPR readings. However, due to the nature of the small projects
completed in 1994 and 2008 (STPs were excavated instead of full test units, and four of
the five graves identified between these two projects were not expanded to reveal the
full extent of the grave shaft), these results could not be georeferenced in as great of
detail as the grave shafts identified in 2007 and 2012.
79
In addition to georeferencing previous archaeological small projects and the
1985 GPR results in GIS, a new surface survey was conducted on the site, where each
tree, tree stump, fencepost, and above-ground utility in the archaeological survey area
was charted and measured to be integrated into a new digital site map. The internal and
external outlines of both the 1929 and 1983 Slave Memorials were also incorporated in
this survey. All of these elements were combined into a survey planning map, where a
grid consisting of randomly selected 5 x 5 ft. test units was overlain onto the
overarching archaeological grid used across the estate (FIGURE 4.2).
Following the production of this site map, nine of the random 5 x 5 ft. test units
atop the ridge believed to contain the cemetery were established on the landscape via
the use of a total station. Each 5 x 5 ft. square was located in one corner of a larger 10 x
10 ft. test unit, though only the quadrant containing the 5 x 5 ft. unit was initially
excavated (FIGURE 4.3). The main archaeological grid used across the Mount Vernon
estate consists of 10 x 10 ft. squares that are based on the southeast corner of the
Mansion House. This grid runs parallel and in line with many of Mount Vernon’s
structures and above-ground features, and was established so as to best analyze the
symmetry of Washington’s Georgian landscape design across the estate.
The excavation strategy utilized in the 2014 Slave Cemetery survey was
designed to cover a large area in small segments with the hopes of identifying
individual grave shafts and structural patterns. This method was chosen to test the
efficacy of the 1985 geophysical survey results as well as other areas were readings
were not detected, or areas that were not surveyed. Furthermore, the lack of ground
80
FIGURE 4.2: Planning map showing survey area prior to excavations.
81
depressions and above-ground evidence of graves at the site precluded the designing of
a test unit placement strategy that could test those features.
The methodology employed at the cemetery consisted of block excavations of
these 5 x 5 ft. test units, excavated stratigraphically until the existence of grave shafts
could be either confirmed or denied, or subsoil was reached. Excavations ceased once
grave shafts had been identified and recorded, and no individual remains or related
burial material was disturbed. All strata and features were recorded on provenience
cards that contain the following information: Site number, test unit number, grid
coordinates, short title, stratigraphic description using the Munsell Soil Color Charts
(2000 revised edition), stratigraphic relationships, screening method and mesh size,
location plan view maps at 1”=2’ scale, opening and closing elevations, artifacts
recovered and quantity of bags, and narrative notes. Additional field records included: a
test unit stratum register, a survey log for elevation data, plan view drawings (1”=2’),
profile drawings (1”=1’), photographic logs, and a daily field journal.
All non-burial features were thoroughly documented before being removed.
Archaeological recovery procedures for this survey were performed in accordance with
the guidelines set by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), which state
that a burial permit is not required so long as individual grave shafts are not excavated
(See Appendix B). In order to gain an understanding of the organization of the cemetery
and the spatial relationships of the graves themselves, it was necessary to expose the
full horizontal dimensions of the graves that were identified. Therefore, if a grave shaft
was partially located within a 5 x 5 ft. test unit, adjacent 5 x 5 ft. squares were excavated
to reveal the overall dimensions of that grave shaft. All recordation to include hand-
82
drawn plan view maps of test units, profiles and elevations, soil color identification, etc.
followed the guidelines laid out in the Mount Vernon Archaeology Field Manuel, last
revised in May, 2013 (Pogue and Jobrack 1988).
FIGURE 4.3: Random 5x5 ft. test unit placed within unit 886. These random test units served as the starting point for excavations (Map by author).
Identified grave shafts were assigned a provenience according to the test unit in
which they were first located. For example, if a grave shaft was found in test unit 802,
and overlain by that unit’s B layer, then the grave shaft would be assigned the
Provenience 802C. Provenience cards were completed for grave shafts as if they were
ordinary archaeological features, however no soil samples were taken, and no
excavation of grave shafts took place.
Because no diagnostic materials had been discovered in previous archaeological
small projects in the cemetery, all strata were fine screened with a 1/4” mesh screen.
83
Stratigraphic relationships were also recorded in detail. In addition, soil samples from
all strata below topsoil excavated on the site were taken for soil chemical analysis.
Summary
The goals of this archaeological survey were multifold: 1) to document features
associated with the Slave Cemetery at Mount Vernon. In recording these features, the
spatial layout of graves within the cemetery were studied to answer questions
pertaining to the cemetery’s organization. Are graves arranged in clusters, rows, or
some other form of arrangement? 2) To determine how many individuals are buried in
the cemetery, and 3) to determine the limits of the cemetery. All of these questions will
take multiple field seasons to answer. However, findings from fieldwork completed in
2014, the survey’s inaugural year, have already given researchers a considerable
amount of new data from which to begin answering some of these questions.
Through this survey, a better understanding of the spatial organization of the
burial ground has been attained, and preliminary interpretation can take place. The
results from the 2014 field season in the Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery are found in
Chapter 5.
84
Chapter 5: Results of 2014 Fieldwork (44FX116)
Introduction
This chapter presents the findings from the 2014 field season of the Mount
Vernon Slave Cemetery archaeological survey. First, an excavation summary is offered
prior to an exploration of archaeological results and a more in-depth focus on the burial
features themselves. The second section of this chapter compares the archaeological
findings from 2014 to the results of Bruce Bevan’s 1985 geophysical survey. A section
on selected artifacts is also included. Finally, an analysis and discussion of these
archaeological findings is provided, detailing why it is believed these results suggest
that the enslaved community at Mount Vernon possessed a larger degree of autonomy
when it came to the funerary rites they practiced.
Excavation Summary
A total of 28 test units (66 5 x 5 ft. test units), covering 1, 649 square feet, were
opened during the 2014 field season (FIGURE 5.1). Unit numbers were assigned
following the incorporation of the currently defined limits of Archaeological Area
44FX116.
The 2014 field season underwent three phases of excavation (FIGURE 5.2).
Phase I involved excavating the randomly generated 5 x 5 ft. squares to test for the
presence of grave features. Of the nine random 5 x 5 ft. squares that were excavated,
grave shafts were identified within five of those test units (702, 735, 773, 846, and 848).
These units were then expanded in order to reveal the full horizontal dimensions of
85
FIGURE 5.1: Map showing main portion of the project area with excavated test units (Map by author).
those features. In many cases, an expanded unit would reveal a subsequent grave shaft,
necessitating further expansion. Once it became apparent that a row of burials existed
along the center ridgeline, the second phase of the project was designed to test for
additional rows east and west of that line. The remainder of Test Units 703 and 738, the
northern half of unit 806, and the entirety of units 739 and 807 were excavated,
however no subsequent lines of burials were identified. Phase III of the excavation was
designed to selectively test unexplored areas of the ridge. The southern half of Test Unit
846 was excavated, along with Test Units 847 and 884 in order to test a series of
reliable GPR readings from the 1985 geophysical survey. Test unit 809 was also placed
86
in order to explore a flat expanse on the center of the ridge that was void of GPR
readings.
FIGURE 5.2: Map showing 2014 excavation phases in main portion of project area (Map by author).
Results
Twenty burial features were recorded in addition to a handful of non-burial
features, both natural and man-made (FIGURE 5.3). Two of these burials, 737D and
241C, were originally partially exposed in 1994 and 2008, respectively, and were
revisited as a part of this survey in order to fully expose and map their dimensions.
Four lithic reduction zones dating to the Mid-Archaic period (6,000-2,500 B.C.) were
87
FIGURE 5.3: Map showing extent of 2014 project area with grave shafts and other features (Map by author).
88
also identified and recorded. Furthermore, a prolific amount of prehistoric artifacts
were recovered throughout the project area in each test unit. These artifacts included
large quantities of fire-cracked rock (FCR), lithic debitage, and various projectile points.
Only a handful of historic-period artifacts were found at the site, and nothing that was
found could be associated with a particular burial or positively identified as a grave
decoration.
In addition to the 64 5 x 5 ft. test units that were excavated in the main portion
of the project area just south of the 1983 Slave Memorial, Tree Hole 4, excavated in
2008 for the proposed planting of trees near George Washington’s New Tomb, was un-
backfilled and mapped with a total station. Test unit 241 was laid in adjacent to this STP
in order to expose the remainder of the grave shaft found in that unit (241C). Test unit
144 was excavated 70 feet northeast of this unit to make way for a new tree planting in
that area. This unit did not contain any burial features, and produced only a handful of
20th century artifacts.
Burial Features
The eighteen burial features3 discovered during the 2014 field season were
identified largely by their oblong east-west oriented soil discolorations. Though each
grave shaft exhibited a unique composition of soils that comprised their grave fill, most
could be identified by their predominantly reddish-orange color. The pale, light-brown
silty clay soil surrounding each grave shaft was relatively uniform across the project
3 This number includes all previously undiscovered burial features found through archaeological survey in 2014 and does not include grave shaft 241C, which was originally discovered in 2008, and grave shaft 737D, identified as grave shaft #2 found in STP 19 in 1994. Dimensions of these two grave shafts are included in TABLE 5.1.
89
area. The color differentiation between these two soil types made for a marked
distinction between grave shafts and the surrounding, undisturbed soil (FIGURE 5.4).
Tree root intrusions were also helpful when identifying the bounds of individual grave
shafts as these roots would often seek the looser soils that comprised the grave fill. This
resulted in an often darker, thin line of organic soil that outlined portions of the grave
shafts themselves.
FIGURE 5.4: Image of main block in project area. Grave shafts from left to right: 808D, 808C, 773D, 773E, 772C, 771C, 737D, 702D, and 702C (Photo by Karen Price).
All grave shafts exhibited an east-west orientation, or a close variation thereof.
Two patterns of spatial organization could be discerned: 1) rows4, and 2) small
clusters5. Two distinct rows, and one small cluster, could be identified within the
project area (FIGURE 5.5). Row 1 runs from north to south along the crest of the natural
ridge, while Row 2 lies slightly southwest of these burial features.
4 For the purposes of this study, a row is defined as three or more individual burials aligned side by side, generally in a straight line (RAS 2013:41). 5 For the purposes of this study, a cluster is defined as two or more individual burials concentrated in a general area, not necessarily in a row or immediately adjacent to one another (RAS 2013:41).
90
FIGURE 5.5: Map showing spatial layout and organization of graves in the 2014 project area (Map by author).
91
Row 1 consists of eight burials.
The northern section of this row includes
three grave shafts: 702C, 702D, and
737D. Each interment exhibited an east-
west orientation with the head pointing
to the west, thereby facing east. 6 Grave
Shaft 737D was cut by a shallow, linear
intrusion (737E) near the top of the
burial, measuring roughly five feet long
and one foot wide (FIGURE 5.6). Based
on the intrusion’s size and shape, and its
orientation to Burial 737D, this feature
was identified as STP 19 from the 1994
mitigation work.
The southern section of Row 1
contains five grave shafts: 772C, 773D,
773E, 808C, and 808D. Grave Shafts 772C and 773E are both aligned east-west, while
773D, 808C, and 808D shift slightly in orientation, pointing northwest-southeast. As a
result, the bottom section of Row 1 arcs slightly towards the southwest. Burial 772C
exhibits a more “coffin-shaped” appearance than do the other grave shafts across the
6 All determinations regarding the placement of the head and foot of a burial were made based upon the width at various points of each grave shaft. The wider end of a burial was determined to be head, while the narrower end of a burial was determined to be the foot.
FIGURE 5.6: Grave Shaft 737D, looking west. Note intrusion cutting upper portion of grave shaft (STP
19 from 1994 mitigation work) (Photo by Karen Price).
92
site, although it is difficult to infer if a grave shaft contains a coffin burial or a shroud
burial based solely on shape alone, and excavations ceased high enough above
interments that coffin material or hardware would not likely have been found. All
burials in this section, with the exception of 808D, appear to be oriented with the head
pointing to the west or northwest. Burial 808D, however, is aligned opposite to this
pattern, with the head of the burial pointing to the southeast and feet pointing to the
northwest. Burial 808D has also been heavily impacted by the root system of a tree that
FIGURE 5.8: Grave Shaft 846F overlying Grave Shafts 846E (left) and 884C (right). Black
outlines added. Grave Shaft 846D (top of image impacted by tree) and 846G (far right of image)
are also visible (Photo by Karen Price).
FIGURE 5.7: Grave Shaft 808D, looking northeast. Note unique orientation of burial with the head point east, and the extensive impact of the tree root intrusion (Photo by
Karen Price).
93
formerly stood atop the grave (FIGURE 5.7). Row 2 consists of four graves: 846F, 846G,
884D, and 885C. Grave Shaft 846F overlies two burials from Cluster 1: 846E, and 884C,
indicating that this burial post-dates those interments (FIGURE 5.8). This is the only
case seen in the project area where burials were intruding upon one another, and
suggests that enough time had passed following the interments in 846E and 884C that
surface evidence and memory of their location had been lost by the time 846F was
placed on the landscape. Grave Shaft 846G possessed a distinct, oblong tan soil stain
centered inside of, and at the head of the burial. Although no evidence suggesting the
use of grave markers has been found in the project area to date, the location of this soil
stain within the grave fill of 846G is intriguing. Grave Shaft 884D exhibited a conical
shape unique among the grave shafts found in the project area. This grave shaft was
also significantly impacted by a root on its southern end, possibly distorting its shape
(FIGURE 5.9).
FIGURE 5.9: Grave shafts found in southern section of project area. From left to right: 846E, 846F, 884C, 846D, 846G, 884D, 885C, and 848C) (Photo by Karen Price).
94
Cluster 1 consists of three burials: 846D, 846E, and 884C. Grave Shafts 846E and
884C appear to be aligned parallel to one another, while Grave Shaft 846D is offset and
to the northeast. Burial 846D is also heavily impacted by a younger holly tree. Grave
Shaft 884C, though intruded upon by a later burial (846F), is clearly the grave of a
young child based on the burial’s size and shape. This burial also exhibits a “coffin”
shape, similar to that of 772C.
Only one other child-sized grave was discovered in the project area: 809C. Test
Unit 809 was selectively placed, rather than randomly generated, during Phase III of the
excavation to test the large flat expanse along the center ridgeline. Though 809C was
not detected on Bevan’s 1985 GPR survey, likely because of its small size, its outline is
quite distinct. Burial 809C differs from the other child-sized burial (884C) in its shape,
exhibiting a more uniform rectangular shape rather than that of a coffin. Furthermore,
this burial is not in a row or cluster of any kind, but is rather isolated on the ridgeline.
Burial 809C is one of four burials discovered in the project area that does not
conform to either a row or cluster pattern of organization. Burial 771C, located just
west of Row 1, Burial 848C, located south of Test Unit 809 on the center ridge line, and
Burial 735, located 15 feet west of Burial 702C, are isolated from the other burials in the
project area. There remains a significant level expanse grid north of Test Units 809 and
810 that has not yet been archaeologically explored.
Grave Shaft 241C, originally discovered in 2008, was further exposed in the 2014
field season in an effort to fully document that burial. Test Unit 241 was placed adjacent
to Tree Hole 4, which was un-backfilled. Excavations revealed the western portion of
Burial 241C, alongside a handful of both modern and prehistoric artifacts. A utility
95
TABLE 5.1: Dimensions of all grave shafts exposed in 2014 survey
# Grave Shaft Length
Width Top
Width Max.
Width Bottom
Orientation Child/Youth/
Adult
1 241C* 7.80 ft. 1.56 ft. 2.91 ft. 1.78 ft. E/W Adult
2 702C‡ 6.92 ft. 1.69 ft. 2.07 ft. 1.25 ft. E/W Adult
3 702D‡ 6.58 ft. 1.56 ft. 1.98 ft. 1.07 ft. E/W Adult
4 735D†‡ - - - - E/W -
5 737D*‡ 6.58 ft. 2.28 ft. 2.28 ft. 1.50 ft. E/W Adult
6 771C‡ 7.08 ft. 2.53 ft. 2.69 ft. 2.44 ft. E/W Adult
7 772C‡ 6.55 ft. 0.87 ft. 1.79 ft. 0.88 ft. E/W Adult
8 773D 6.28 ft. 1.23 ft. 1.81 ft. 1.57 ft. NW/SE Adult/Youth
9 773E‡ 6.25 ft. 1.34 ft. 1.87 ft. 1.32 ft. E/W Adult/Youth
10 808C 7.62 ft. 1.82 ft. 2.33 ft. 1.82 ft. NW/SE Adult
11 808D* 6.66 ft. 1.39 ft. 2.04 ft. 1.02 ft. NW/SE Adult
12 809C 3.13 ft. 0.99 ft. 1.41 ft. 1.05 ft. NW/SE Child
13 846D 7.04 ft. 1.54 ft. 1.94 ft. 1.35 ft. NW/SE Adult
14 846E‡ 5.84 ft. 2.22 ft. 2.22 ft. 1.55 ft. NW/SE Adult/Youth
15 846F‡ 6.32 ft. 2.35 ft. 2.48 ft. 2.17 ft. E/W Adult
16 846G‡ 6.25 ft. 1.46 ft. 2.08 ft. 1.24 ft. E/W Adult/Youth
17 848C 6.74 ft. 1.80 ft. 2.05 ft. 1.99 ft. NE/SW Adult
18 884C‡ 3.43 ft. 0.73 ft. 1.18 ft. 0.53 ft. NW/SE Child
19 884D‡ 6.87 ft. 3.79 ft. 3.79 ft. 1.02 ft. E/W Adult
20 885C† - - 1.89 ft. - E/W Adult/Youth
* Grave shaft originally exposed prior to 2014 survey † Grave shaft only partially exposed ‡ Grave shaft aligns with 1985 GPR reading
96
trench running roughly north-south intruded the burial, though it is uncertain how
deep this trench cut into the grave shaft as it was left unexcavated.
The full dimensions of each grave shaft exposed in the 2014 field season can be
found in Table 5.1. A single measurement was made noting the length of each burial,
and three measurements were made documenting the width: these measurements
were taken at the top of the grave shaft, the widest point of the grave shaft, and the
bottom of the grave shaft.
2014 Burial Features in Comparison to 1985 GPR Readings
One component of the 2014 summer and fall field season was to test the results
of Bevan’s 1985 geophysical survey. Ground-truthing these results both tested the
efficacy of the 1985 geophysical study in detecting the number and locations of graves
in the cemetery, and will also influence the development and refinement of the
archaeological research design for the area. Further geophysical research will be
undertaken in the coming years and results will be compared to the 1985 results. This
future GPR survey will also test areas outside the bounds of the 1985 geophysical
survey area to aid in answering questions pertaining to the burial ground’s overall size
and layout. Figure 5.10 shows the locations of grave shafts found archaeologically in
2014 overlain with the 1985 GPR readings.
Test units in the 2014 project area covered an area containing 15 subsurface
readings detected in the 1985 geophysical survey. Ten of these readings were
considered “more reliable” and the remaining five readings were considered “less
reliable” in Bevan’s interpretation (Bevan 1985:15). All ten “more reliable readings”
97
FIGURE 5.10: Map showing 2014 grave shafts in relation to 1985 GPR readings (Map by author).
98
detected by Bevan that were covered by the project area were confirmed through this
archaeological survey. Grave Shafts 735D, 702C, 702D, 737D, 771C, 772C, 773E, 846G,
and 884D aligned precisely with Bevan’s more reliable GPR readings. Grave Shafts
846E, 846F, and 884C were also detected, however since these burials were stacked
upon each other, GPR detected a single, large subsurface disturbance. Bevan in turn
interpreted this as a single grave shaft. All five of Bevan’s “less reliable” readings that
were explored in the project area did not turn out to be grave shafts, but instead
reflected minor subsurface depositional anomalies such as more loosely compacted
soils or tree roots.
FIGURE 5.11: Grave Shaft 846D, looking southeast. Note significant disturbance by the
extant holly tree (Photo by Karen Price).
FIGURE 5.12: Grave Shaft 809C, looking west (Photo by Karen Price).
99
Six grave shafts were found in the project area that were not detected in the
1985 geophysical survey. These grave shafts are 808C, 808D, 809C, 846D, and 848C.
Grave Shaft 808D was heavily impacted by the root system of a no longer extant large
tree. This root system, which also intruded upon 808C but to a lesser extent, likely
distorted any radar readings that were made in the area. Burial 773D lies in-between
Burials 773E and 808C in an area largely un-impacted by any anomalies other than the
burial itself. It is unclear why this grave was not detected in the 1985 survey, however
Bevan made clear in his report that sometimes graves simply cannot be detected by
GPR (Bevan 1985:15-16).
Grave Shaft 846D was heavily impacted by an extent holly tree and tree root
system (FIGURE 5.11). This would have made a clear radar reading virtually impossible
to attain. Grave Shaft 809C, a child-sized grave measuring only 3.13 feet in length was
likely undetected on account of its small size (FIGURE 5.12). Often times child graves
are not large enough to be reliably detected through the use of GPR (Bevan 1985:15).
Selected Artifacts: Intaglio Glass Disk
.
FIGURE 5.13: Intaglio glass disk found in Slave Cemetery (left) compared with similar disk found in House for Families slave quarter (right) (Photo by Karen Price).
100
A small intaglio glass disk, molded with what appears to be a branch of coral,
was found in a mottled silty clay layer (807B) barren of any notable archaeological
features (FIGURE 5.13). The disk measuring 0.4 inches in diameter, 0.12 inches in
thickness, and weighing 0.6 grams, was originally set in a brass button used as a
cufflink. An almost identical glass disk was excavated from the cellar underneath the
House for Families slave quarter site from 1984-1985 (Pogue and White 1991:30-33).
Seriation analysis of ceramic artifacts found in the cellar produced a relative
depositional chronology. This chronology indicates that the glass disk comes from a
stratum likely deposited after 1769 (Pogue and White 1991:11-12). The connection
between these two similar artifacts, both found in contexts associated with Mount
Vernon’s enslaved population, is intriguing.
Selected Artifacts: Copper Alloy Button
A small circular stamped button weighing 1.4 grams, and made of copper alloy
was found in the topsoil layer of Test Unit 637 (637A) (FIGURE 5.14). This complete,
one piece flat disk button has a single shank that appears to be made of either copper
FIGURE 5.14: Front and reverse image of copper alloy button (Photo by Karen Price).
101
alloy or iron. The shank is both substantially bent and corroded. Corrosion is most
significant around the base of the shank where it meets the back face of the button. The
circular face of the button measures 0.51 inches in diameter, and its thickness measures
0.07 inches. The button height from the top of the shank to the top of the button face
measures 0.25 inches.
Selected Artifacts: Multi-faceted Glass Bead
A small black glass bead measuring 0.28 inches in length, 0.3 inches in width,
and weighing 0.4 grams was found in the topsoil layer of Test Unit 737 (737A) (FIGURE
5.15). The bead appears to be drawn with a straight polyhedral form and is of simple
structure, in that only a single layer of glass was used in its production. The bead is
faceted, exhibiting five rows of eight facets each, forty facets total in a cornerless
octagonal shape. It appears as though the facets were created by grinding the bead
before being heat-treated to smooth the facet edges. This non-tubular bead resembles a
Class IIf drawn bead (a bead whose surface has been modified by the application of
FIGURE 5.15: Multi-faceted glass bead found at Site 44FX116 (Photo by Karen Price).
102
ground facets) in Kidd and Kidd’s (1970:67-83) system of bead classification, updated
by Karklins (1985:89-94).
This was the only example of a bead found throughout the project area. Neither
its provenience nor its characteristics aid in determining a reliable date for the artifact.
A handful of recent artifacts, such as a modern broken hairclip, and a number of
prehistoric artifacts, including flakes and lithic debitage, were also found in 737A.
Prehistoric Artifacts
Prehistoric artifacts were found throughout the project area in copious amounts.
The majority of these artifacts consisted of flakes and lithic debitage from the
production of various stone tools on the site, and were found in various amounts in
FIGURE 5.16: Three prehistoric artifacts found in the project area in 2014.
103
each of the 66 test units excavated in the 2014 field season. A number of projectile
points were found, some complete, others incomplete, exhibiting the various stages of
the lithic reduction process (FIGURE 5.16). The density of lithic material found
throughout the cemetery site gives credence to the supposition made in previous
excavations that the ridge that contains the cemetery was likely used as a prehistoric
work camp for the production of stone tools (White 1994; Breen 2007a, 2007b;
Pecoraro 2012). While no evidence of structures was found in the project area, four
lithic reduction zones were recorded in Test Units 671, 702, 703 and 739. A fifth lithic
reduction zone may have been found in Test Unit 886, however this unit was heavily
impacted by the root system of a large extant oak tree, which could have disturbed the
provenience of that deposit. All of these areas contained large amounts of worked stone
cobbles and lithic debitage.
Analysis
What can these findings from the 2014 field season reveal about the enslaved
population at Mount Vernon? By respectfully leaving grave shafts unexcavated beyond
the point of identification, much information has not been recovered, nor was it
intended to be recovered in the scope of this project. Questions pertaining to what sort
of grave goods, if any, were individuals buried with, and what information could be
attained through skeletal analysis of remains cannot be addressed. However, an
understanding of the spatial arrangement of burials within the cemetery can begin to
take shape.
104
The lack of evidence of any sort of grave markers indicating either the head or
foot of individual burials is revealing. No stone markers or field stones appear to have
been used to mark burials that were found in the project area, neither was there any
evidence of wooden markers, such as small post holes and post molds. This does not
preclude the possibility that markers may once have existed but have since been
removed or deteriorated. However if this were the case, one would expect to see the
refilled cavity of where a stone had once been or a soil stain indicating the place of a
marker. Of course if markers were too small or thin, or were shallowly placed, they may
not have left any archaeological signature.
Findings from 2014 indicate that two rows of burials are extant in relation to a
single cluster of graves, and four isolated interments that do not align with either a
linear, or cluster pattern on the southern portion of the ridge that contains the Slave
Cemetery. The existence of two rows of burials suggests that some method of linear
organization was being employed in the cemetery. Without any sort of markers,
however, how might this have been achieved?
If no form of grave marker was used to demarcate individual graves on the
landscape, then another method of keeping track of the cemetery’s organization may
have been present. A recently completed burial can often be recognized by a distinct
mound of soil overlying the grave. This is a result of excess backfill material created
when a coffin or shrouded body takes the place of soil that had been excavated for the
burial. Burial mounds will typically flatten and weather over time, on the surface
resulting in a grave site that cannot be discerned from the surrounding landscape.
However, it is possible that burial mounds were prominent enough at the time of
105
subsequent interments that those excavating a new grave were able to align additional
burials based off of the discernable mounds from previous interments. The presence of
burial mounds, combined with collective memory among the enslaved community at
Mount Vernon may account for the existence of these rows.
It is also interesting to note the successes and failures of this method. The
southern section of Row 1 (Burials 773E, 773D, 808C, and 808D) clearly begins to veer
to the west, heading down slope rather than staying on the centerline of the ridge.
Burials 846E and 884C of Cluster 1 may very well be a continuation of this row as their
northwest-southeast alignment is quite similar. It is also evident that above-surface
evidence and memory of past burials was not always enough to ensure continuity in the
cemetery. Row 2 (Burials 846F, 846G, 884D, and 885C) partially overlies Cluster 1. It is
evident that Burial 846F post-dates Burials 846E and 884C. Furthermore, its similar
orientation and spacing with Burials 846G, 884D, and 885C strongly suggest that these
burials are spatially and likely temporally related.
Another row of graves is hypothesized to exist just west of Row 1. Grave Shaft
735D aligns with one reliable GPR reading seven feet to the north and another eight feet
to the south. The positive confirmation of all reliable GPR readings explored in the
project area in 2014 make it likely that the locations of these additional readings are
accurate. Another grave shaft was found and fully exposed in 1994 that aligns with
grave shaft 735D and the two reliable GPR readings as well (FIGURE 5.17). Both Grave
Shaft 2 from the 1994 mitigation excavations and Grave Shaft 735D exhibit an east-west
orientation and when viewed in relation to the two addition GPR readings appear to
comprise a single row running north-south down the ridge roughly parallel to Row 1.
106
FIGURE 5.17: Map showing conjectured location of addition row of burials through a combination of grave shafts confirmed through archaeology and reliable GPR readings (Map by author).
Of the four isolated burials (735D, 771C, 809C, and 848C), Grave Shaft 771C is
perhaps the most unique. As mentioned above, 735D may in fact be associated with an
as of yet undefined row of graves running west of Row 1. Grave Shaft 771C was very
rectangular in shape, and was by far the widest grave shaft found throughout the
project area, measuring over 2.5 feet in width the length of the burial. Its isolated
107
location in relation to Row 1 is also a mystery. In Row 1, there exists a ten-foot gap in-
between Burials 737D and 772C. Grave Shaft 771C is positioned just above this gap. It is
unclear if this burial was originally meant to be a part of Row 1, and was simply placed
in error seven feet to the west, or if this individual was set apart intentionally.
Burial 808D was also unique in that its orientation was opposite that of the
standardly observed pattern of orienting burials with the head pointing to the west.
Though heavily impacted by the root system of a no longer extant tree, it was still
possible to discern the width of the burial at both ends. Instead of the wider end of the
burial pointing to the west, indicating the direction of the head, it was clearly pointing
to the east. The width of Grave Shafts 771C, 773E, 773D, and 846E were largely uniform
in width all along the shaft, making it more difficult to discern if those burials were also
aligned backward. It is assumed, however, that they are not.
Discussion
Does the information gathered through research and analysis at Site 44FX116,
the Slave Cemetery point to or indicate cultural resistance among the enslaved
population that lived at Mount Vernon? The problem with identifying this type of
resistance, that we must “infer the will of the actor” for their intentions are not told to
us, persists, or as succinctly put by archaeologist, Garrett Fesler, “cultural resistance is a
state of mind that defies quantification” (Mintz 1995:14; Fesler 2010:45). Archaeology
is inherently limited in its ability to enter into the minds of past individuals and truly
grasp their thoughts, feelings, and intentions. Nevertheless, it is not an unworthy
aspiration.
108
In order to answer this question, an application of theory must be made. The
plantation landscape is both physically structured and culturally perceived. Just
because certain structures may have been implemented by one group of people with a
certain intent does not mean that another group would have fully grasped the intended
meaning of that structure, or wouldn’t have subverted it with another set of meanings.
The phenomenological perspective of landscapes, stemming from post-processual
archaeology, is applied here.
The cemetery space covered in the project area in 2014 is located on an isolated
finger of land overlooking the Potomac River and dropping in elevation suddenly on
either side. Even today, the area exudes an air of tranquility. Back in Washington’s time,
and before the construction of the New Tomb in 1831, the site would have been even
more isolated from the hustle and bustle of the utilitarian plantation space located just
up the south lane. Though burials sometimes occurred during the daylight, as one
visitor to Mount Vernon observed in 1846, a review of pertinent literature reveals that
many funerary rites and ceremonies occurred at nighttime (Rainville 2014:57; Thomas
2008; Genovese 1979:195). Though the plot of land that contains the cemetery was
typically chosen by plantation owners, these spaces would have been transformed by
the enslaved community performing funerary rites into sacred places where slaves
could come together to honor the dead, appease the spirits, and reaffirm their identities
as human beings, with rituals, memories, and histories (Rainville 2014:57; Thomas
2008; Genovese 1979:195).
The location of the cemetery so far from the utilitarian and social structure of
Mount Vernon is also revealing. The nearest building to the cemetery, excluding the
109
new and old tomb, is the carriage house/stable, located over 800 feet to the north and
obscured from view by numerous tree groves and over a fifty-foot climb in elevation.
The placement of the cemetery space on such an isolated spot off the beaten track
means that visitors approaching Mount Vernon from the Mansion House Farm entrance
road would not have seen or noticed the cemetery as they took in the grand view of the
Mansion. Though no records from Washington or any other executor of the estate
mention the founding of the cemetery, it is likely that the General, his older half-brother
Lawrence Washington, or his father Augustine Washington, chose the location of the
cemetery far from the working and entertaining spaces of the main house on land ill-
suited for development (Rainville 2014:49; Chapman et al. 2006:11).
Though two roughly aligned rows of burials were found in the project area in
2014, the mixture of organizational patterns (rows, clusters, and isolated individuals)
suggests that enslaved individuals were given a higher degree of sovereignty when
conducting their funerary rites at Mount Vernon. It has been shown by Chapman et al
(2006) that the organization and arrangement of slave burial grounds may correlate to
the level of involvement slave owners had in the spiritual lives of their slaves. In a
comparative study of the Monticello and Bremo plantation slave cemeteries in central
Virginia, Chapman et al. note that General John Hartwell Cocke, the proprietor of Bremo
plantation, made sure his slaves received a proper Christian upbringing. The General
constructed a chapel, with accompanying cemetery, for his slaves. Burials in the
cemetery, which was enclosed by a stone wall, were aligned in very neat rows and were
adorned with inscribed headstones. Contrast this with the Monticello slave cemetery,
which exhibits more roughly defined rows and isolated burial plots, some adorned with
110
rough field stones (Chapman et al. 2006). Furthermore, if a master was concerned with
ordering and structuring his plantation in ways that reinforced his social dominance
and order over chaos, it stands to reason that if he was involved in his slaves’ funerary
practices, the slave cemetery would also exhibit the highly regimented signs of the
Georgian Order.
Instead, at Mount Vernon we see a less-regimented structuring of the burial
ground, suggesting a larger degree of autonomy on the part of the enslaved community
in the funerary rites that were practiced and in the design of the cemetery itself. In
many cases (Sipe 2011; Vlach 1990) the items and grave decorations found within or
overlying enslaved African American burials “highlight cultural persistence in the face
of extreme pressure to assimilate” (Perry et al. 2009; Baugher and Veit 2014:14).
Though no grave decorations were found at Site 44FX116 in 2014, possibly because
excavation of burials ceased once clear outlines could be discerned, the unique
structuring of the cemetery may point to an amalgam of “survivals,” or remembered
African traditions, intermingled with English and American traditions regarding
religion and mortuary customs. The acculturation process is never ending; in the slave-
owning Americas, and to this day, “African America” represents the culmination of
shared history, experiences, memories, and beliefs (Mullin 1994). Another factor to
consider is the highly restricted space atop the ridge containing the cemetery. With a
steep drop in elevation to the east, south, and west, functional burial space was limited.
This would have played an important role in the structuring of the burial ground and
the use of space atop that ridge. Undoubtedly these two factors were influential on each
111
other and on the enslaved African Americans who instilled in that space deep and
sacred meaning.
This mortuary context was a small part of the enslaved African American
existence in which freedom was allowed, at least to some degree (Jamieson 1995:41).
The freedom to conduct funerary rituals that reinforced one’s individual and communal
human identity helped, in a very small way, to combat that vulgar and horrendous
affront to justice that is slavery. This autonomy in no way undercuts the fact that
slavery was a physically, emotionally, and spiritually demoralizing system that
permeated every aspect of social and political life. However, to revisit Garrett Fesler’s
definition of cultural resistance, that is, to affirm one’s identity as someone other than a
slave, the funerals and mortuary rituals of the enslaved community did undercut the
foundation of the slave system that asserted black inferiority, docility, and compliance
(Fesler 2010:45). In Fesler’s research on the practice of yard sweeping as a discrete
form of cultural resistance, he states that “yard sweeping allowed the residents to
establish a semblance of stability and personal satisfaction, to groom their environment
in a way that fit their cultural aesthetic. Yard sweeping did not threaten the institution
of slavery, but it may have helped people living under unimaginable stress to find
comfort” (Fesler 2010:45). In very much the same way, the friends, relatives, and loved
ones who gathered on that small ridge overlooking the Potomac River, not only
honored those whom they came to bury, but they found strength to survive in each
other.
112
Chapter 6: Conclusion
Discussion
The goal of this thesis was to show that the Slave Cemetery (44FX116) at Mount
Vernon was an important physical space and culturally perceived place in the lives of
the enslaved individuals who lived here. This sacred place was one of many major and
integral components to Mount Vernon’s plantation landscape, and it facilitated acts of
cultural resistance among the enslaved community. In order to show how the cemetery
fit into the perceived cultural landscapes of the enslaved, a phenomenological approach
to the study of landscapes has been taken. This approach, championed by Tilley (1994),
espouses that landscapes are not mere props to be used by actors in the great play of
life, but rather they synchronously influence, and are influenced, by those actors.
Environments and bodies are both physically real, and cognitively constructed.
This approach has not come without its fair share of criticism (Brück 2005;
Fleming 2006). Matthew Johnson states that “practical applications of phenomenology
to archaeology have to assume some kind of empathetic unity to human experience, an
assumption that ‘our’ experience now has a direct link to ‘their’ experience in the past,
in order to be convincing” (Johnson 2010:118). This critique is not uncalled for.
Phenomenology’s application to prehistoric sites (Tilley 1994; Commings & Whittle
2003) often requires researchers to make inferences that simply cannot be proven or
disproven. Fleming, critiquing Tilly (1994) and Commings & Whittle (2003) “points out
that claims for ambiguity and multiple meanings in this context make claimed
references almost impossible to disprove” (Johnson 2012:276).
113
Where phenomenology’s application to prehistoric interpretations falls short, in
historical archaeology, it is kept in check by historical documentation (Mytum
2004:179). The interpretations of the plantation landscape and the perceived cultural
landscapes of the enslaved made via phenomenological perspectives can corroborated
or contradicted by the journals, letters, ledgers, and first-hand accounts of the
individuals who were there. The works of Rainville (2009, 2014), Ginsburg (2010),
Isaac (1999), Fesler (2010), Upton (2010), and an array of others has shown that
documentary sources support the supposition that landscapes were perceived and
experienced by enslaved African Americans in very different way than whites. The
simple act of perceiving one’s world in a different manner than that of the dominating
class is resistant. Intent has nothing to do with it.
The cemetery was one such place within the greater plantation landscape in
which enslaved African Americans could maintain a differing perception from that of
the master class. In spite of the economic, social, and ideological subversion, physical
domination, and emotional assailment of enslaved African Americans by the system of
slavery and those who maintained it, African American individuals and plantation
communities never lost sight of the truth, they were human beings, born equally free,
independent, and governed by the same natural laws as anyone else.
Not all resistant behavior directly threatened the slave system. However this
does not mean that that system wasn’t being quietly and subversively undercut by
those whom it tried to break. Stephan Palmié wisely asserts that:
“in forming stable personal relationships, founding families, planting gardens, acquiring property, burying the dead, or enacting ritual relationships with the divine, slaves did not break the bonds of slavery. Rather they bent them in ways that allowed them to carve out a meaningful existence in the face of a regime
114
often geared—at least theoretically—towards denying them just that (Palmié 1995:xviii, italics added).
Future Research
Archaeological work in the Slave Cemetery (44FX116) at George Washington’s
Mount Vernon has contributed immensely to our understanding of that sacred place.
Combined, small projects in 1994, 2007, 2008, and 2012, and full-scale survey in 2014
have revealed a total of 26 grave shafts in the Slave Cemetery. These burials represent a
mere fraction of the enslaved population that lived, worked, and died on the Mount
Vernon plantation. More archaeological research will be required in the coming years in
order to definitively answer the research questions developed at the outset of this
project: How many individuals are buried in the cemetery? What are the boundaries of
the cemetery? And what can information gathered from the burial ground tell us about
the enslaved population at Mount Vernon? Still, we have found preliminary answers to
a number of these questions this field season.
Large areas of the cemetery remain unexplored. Test units along the edges of the
ridge where it begins to turn to a slope will help identify the southern boundaries of the
burial ground. Further testing of the northern section of the project area near the 1983
memorial pathway and archway is also a priority. While Bevan’s geophysical survey
stopped short of covering the area surrounding the archway, excavations in 2007 and
2008, and the confirmed presence of previously unknown burial in those areas, indicate
that the northern boundary of the cemetery remains undefined. Both further
geophysical research and archaeological research in these areas will help to determine
115
the number of individuals interred in the cemetery as well as define the boundaries of
the burial ground.
Furthermore, additional research needs to be done regarding the locations of
additional slave cemetery sites that were once associated with Washington’s five farms.
It is likely that these burial grounds have been lost due to suburban development of the
lands surrounding the Mansion House farm, however it is possible that remnants of
these cemeteries may still exists. Multiple avenues of research can be pursued to help
answer this question. In 2015, Mount Vernon will undergo an extensive Light Detection
and Ranging (LiDAR) survey covering the entirety of Washington’s 8,000 acres. Optical
remote sensing technology will be installed in a single-engine aircraft and flown in a
grid pattern over Washington’s original five farms tract. This technology has the ability
to penetrate the forest canopy and collect surface data including subtle deviations in
elevation throughout the landscape. This extremely advanced basemap will allow
researchers to locate features virtually invisible to the naked eye such as old roadbeds,
ditches, and even ground depressions, possibly associated with cemeteries long since
forgotten. This relatively new technology has already been applied to archaeological
studies with great success (Chase et al. 2011; Johnson 2014). Further research can be
conducted in the various archival institutions that service Northern Virginia and
Washington D.C. for any references to burial grounds associated with George
Washington’s Mount Vernon. Finally, oral histories and neighborhood interviews can
assist archaeologists in the search for these lost cemeteries by tapping into the
collective neighborhood and regional memory of the area.
116
One of the weakest elements of all studies surrounding slave cemetery sites,
including this one, is the collective lack of research that has been done on comparative
colonial-era African cemeteries. So often researchers are forced to make broad
generalizations, identifying culture groups and labeling them “Central African,” or,
“West African,” simply because so little is known of the diverse culture groups and
burial customs in these regions (Jamieson 1995). One must not forget that Central and
West Africa span a territory larger than the continental United States, and these regions
are filled with culture groups distinct from one another. Future research must focus on
a more balanced and holistic study of colonial-era African cemetery landscapes.
Extensive research has been conducted and literature written concerning the
slave experience in America. All of this allied research has benefited society greatly by
opening its collective, and often stubborn eyes to challenge and question traditional
ways of thinking about the past and about contemporary groups of people. This
research is, and should be, a never-ending endeavor, of which this thesis is proud to be
a part.
117
References
Anderson, James 1797 Farm Reports. 18 February, 4 March, 27 May, 3 June, 22 July 1797. Washington
Headquarters Library, Morristown, NJ. Transcript provided by The Papers of George Washington. Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, Mount Vernon, VA.
Armstrong, Douglas V., Mark Hauser, David W. Knight and Stephan Lenik 2009 Variation in Venues of Slavery and Freedom: Interpreting the Late Eighteenth-
Century Cultural Landscape of St. John, Danish West Indies Using an Archaeological GIS. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(1): 94-111.
Ball, Charles 1837 Slavery in the United States: A Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Charles Ball,
a Black Man. John S. Taylor, New York. Reprinted 1969 by Negro Universities Press, New York.
Baugher, Sherene, and Richard F. Veit 2014 The Archaeology of American Cemeteries and Gravemarkers. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville. Belkin, Lisa 1990 Unearthing of Free-Slave Cemetery May Put Dallas Road Project on Hold. New
York Times 13 August: A12. New York, New York. Bevan, Bruce W. 1985 A Geophysical Survey at Mount Vernon. Report to the Mount Vernon Ladies’
Association. Manuscript, MVLA, Mount Vernon, VA. 1999 A Geophysical Survey at the Alexandria Freedmen’s Cemetery. Report to Terry H.
Klein, URS Greiner, Inc. Manuscript, Alexandria Archaeology, Alexandria, VA. Bigman, Daniel P. 2014 Mapping Social Relationships: Geophysical Survey of a Nineteenth Century
American Slave Cemetery. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 6:17-30. Blakey, Michael L 2010 African Burial Ground Project: paradigm for cooperation? Museum International
62(1-2):61-68. Blanchard, Bobby 2014 Community Slams Bid to Bulldoze Historic Cemetery. Houston Chronicle.
Houston, Texas. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Community-slams-bid-to-bulldoze-historic-cemetery-5565934.php.
118
Bon-Harper, Sarah; Fraser Neiman, and Derek Wheeler 2003 “Monticello’s Park Cemetery” Monticello Department of Archaeology Technical
Report Series Number 5. Electronic document, http://www.monticello.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/parkcemetery.pdf, accessed February 5, 2014.
Brandt, Thomas 1998 George Washington’s Herbal Pursuits. The Herb Companion 1998:42-46. Braun, D.P. 1979 Illinois Hopewell Burial Practices and Social Organization: A Reexamination of
the Kluck-Gibson Mound Group. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, D.S. Brose and N. Greber, editors, pp. 66-79. Kent State University Press, Kent.
Breckenridge, Curt 2008 Mount Vernon Archaeology Small Project Form. 44FX116/1, Tree Holes,
September 1, 2008. Manuscript, MVLA, Mount Vernon, VA. Breen, Eleanor 2007a Mount Vernon Archaeology Small Project Form. 44FX116, Slave Memorial Arch,
June 6-14, 2007. Manuscript, MVLA, Mount Vernon, VA. 2007b Mount Vernon Archaeology Small Project Form – Update. 44FX116, Slave
Memorial Arch, July 16-19, 2007. Manuscript, MVLA, Mount Vernon, VA. Brück, J. 2005 Experiencing the Past? The Development of Phenomenological Archaeology in
British Prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues 12(1):47-72. Calt, Stephen 2008 I’d Rather Be the Devil: Skip James and the Blues. Chicago Review Press, Chicago. Carr, Christopher 1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and
Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(2):105-200.
Casper, Scott 2008 Sarah Johnson’s Mount Vernon: The Forgotten History of an American Shrine. Hill
and Wang, New York. Cass, Michael 2014 Science uncovers story of slaves on zoo property. The Tennessean. 18 September.
Nashville, Tennessee. http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2014/09/18/science-uncovers-story-slaves-zoo-property/15845447/.
119
Chapman, C. Thomas, Steve Marqusee, and Matthew Reeves 2006 “Hark from de tomb a doleful soun”: Contextualizing the Slave Cemetery at
Montpelier. Manuscript on file, Mount Vernon Ladies Association. Mount Vernon, VA.
Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, John F. Weishampel, Jason B. Drake, Ramesh L. Shrestha, K. Clint Slantton, Jaime J. Awe, and William E. Carter 2011 Airborne LiDAR, Archaeology, and the Ancient Maya Landscape at Caracol,
Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(2011):387-398. Circuit Court of Fairfax County 1967a Final Decree. United States Plywood Corporation and Miller & Smith Associates
as Wessynton Joint Venture vs. Any And All Persons Having An Interest In Any Body Or Bodies Buried. October 13, 1967. Chancery No. 25479. Fairfax, VA.
1967b Bill of Complaint. United States Plywood Corporation and Miller & Smith Associates as Wessynton Joint Venture vs. Any And All Persons Having An Interest In Any Body Or Bodies Buried. August 7, 1967. Chancery No. 25479. Fairfax, VA.
Commonwealth of Virginia 1967 Permit for Disinterment, Transit, and Reinterment. Bureau of Vital Records and
Health Statistics, Richmond, VA. Manuscript, City of Fairfax Cemetery Office, 10567 Main St. Fairfax, VA.
Cummings, V. and A. Whittle. 2003 Tombs with a View: Landscape, Monuments, and Trees. Antiquity 77(296):255-
266. Davidson, James Michael 1999 Freedmen’s Cemetery (1869-1907): A Chronological Reconstruction of an
Excavated African American Burial Ground, Dallas, Texas. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
DeCorse, Christopher 1992 Culture Contact, Continuity and Change on the Gold Coast, A.D. 1400-1900.
African Archaeological Review 10:163-196. Deetz, James 1996 [1977] In Small Things Forgotten, Expanded and Revised edition. Anchor Books,
New York. Diggins, Peter S. 1965 Slave Skeletons in VA. Tied to Mason Closet. Washington Post 12 June:B6.
Washington, DC.
120
Ellis, Clifton and Ginsburg, Rebecca 2010 Introduction. In Cabin, Quarter, Plantation: Architecture and Landscapes of North
American Slavery, Clifton Ellis and Rebecca Ginsburg, editors, pp. 1-15. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Fairfax Cemetery Records 1967 Fairfax Cemetery Records. Manuscript, City of Fairfax Cemetery Office, 10567
Main St. Fairfax, VA. Fairfax City Times 1967 Slaves’ Cemetery. Fairfax City Times 16 August:23, Fairfax City, VA. Fairfax Herald 1967 Of Valuable Unimproved Real Estate. Fairfax Herald 11 August:4, Fairfax, VA. Fesler, Garrett 2000 Preliminary Archaeological Findings from the Pettus Burial Ground. Paper
presented at the November 2000 Jamestown Conference. 2010 Excavating the Spaces and Interpreting the Places of Enslaved Africans and Their
Descendants. In Cabin, Quarter, Plantation: Architecture and Landscapes of North American Slavery, Clifton Ellis and Rebecca Ginsburg, editors, pp. 27-49. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Flemming, A. 2006 Post-processual Landscape Archaeology: A Critique. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 16(3):267-280. Geertz, Clifford 2000 [1973] The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz. Basic
Books, New York. General Services Administration 2009 The New York African Burial Ground: Unearthing the African Presence in Colonial
New York. Howard University Press, Washington DC. Genovese, Eugene D. 1976 Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World The Slaves Made. Vintage Books, New York. Gilliam, Dorothy 1982 Remembrance. The Washington Post 6 February:B1. Washington, DC. Ginsburg, Rebecca 2010 Escaping Through a Black Landscape. In Cabin, Quarter, Plantation: Architecture
and Landscapes of North American Slavery, Clifton Ellis and Rebecca Ginsburg, editors, pp. 51-66. Yale University Press, New Haven.
121
Gowans, Alan 1964 Images of American Living. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia. Gorn, Elliot J. 1984 Black Spirits: The Ghostlore of Afro-American Slaves. American Quarterly 36(4)
549-565. Hatcher, William E. 1908 John Jasper: The Unmatched Negro Philosopher and Preacher. Fleming H. Revell
Company, New York. Hodder, Ian 1984 Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European Neolithic. In Ideology, Power,
and Prehistory, D. Miller and C. Tilley, editors, pp. 51-68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hutchins, J. Reynolds 2013 Potential of Sammons site, previously in bypass route, unknown. The Daily
Progress. Charlottesville, Virginia. Isaac, Rhys 1999 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill. Jamieson, Ross W. 1995 Material Culture and Social Death: African American Burial Practices. Historical
Archaeology 29(4):39-58. Journal of American Folklore 1894 Mortuary Customs and Beliefs of South Carolina Negroes. Journal of American
Folklore, 7(27):319-319. Johnson, Katharine M., and William B. Ouimet 2014 Rediscovering the lost Archaeological Landscape of Southern New England using
Airborn Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). Journal of Archaeological Science 43(2014):9-20.
Johnson, Matthew H. 2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden. 2012 Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology. The Annual Review of
Anthropology 41:269-284. Karklins, Karlis 1985 Glass Beads: The 19th Century Levin Catalogue and Venetian Bead Book and
Guide to Description of Glass Beads. National Historic Parks, Quebec.
122
Kidd, Kenneth E. and Martha Ann Kidd 1970 A Classification System for Glass Beads for the Use of Field Archaeologists.
Canadian Historical Sites: Occasional Paper in Archaeology and History No. 1, pp. 45-89: Ottawa.
King, Charlotte 2010 Separated by Death and Color: The African American Cemetery of New
Philadelphia, Illinois. Historical Archaeology 44(1):125-137. Kolchin, Peter 2003 American Slavery: 1619-1877. Hill and Wang, New York. Lee, Jean B. 2006 Experiencing Mount Vernon: Eyewitness Accounts, 1784-1865. University of
Virginia Press, Charlottesville. McCombs, Phil 1983 Repaying a Debt at Mount Vernon. The Washington Post 22 September:E1-E2.
Washington, DC. McGuire, R.H. 1992 Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam Community. Westview Press, Boulder. Mintz, Sidney W. 1995 Slave Life on Caribbean Sugar Plantations: Some Unanswered Questions. In Slave
Cultures and the Cultures of Slavery, Stephan Palmié, editor, pp. 12-22. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association (MVLA) 1928 Minutes of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. Mount Vernon, Virginia. 1929 Minutes of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. Mount Vernon, Virginia. 1947 Slaves burying ground. Typescript, Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, Mount
Vernon, Virginia. 2000 Slave Cemetery. Internal Memo, Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, Mount
Vernon, VA. Muller, Stephen W. 2006 Colonial Experiences of Death and Burial: The Landscape Archaeology of West
Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide. Bachelor’s thesis, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Mullin, Michael 1994 Africa in America: Slave Acculturation and Resistance in the American South and
the Bristish Caribbean, 1736-1831. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
123
Mytum, H. 2004 Mortuary Monuments and Burial Grounds of the Historic Period. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Palmié, Stephan 1995 Introduction. In Slave Cultures and the Cultures of Slavery, Stephan Palmié, editor,
pp. ix-xlvii. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Parrinder, Geoffrey 1970 African Traditional Religion. Greenwood, Westport, CT. Pearce, William 1794 Farm Reports. 30 August 1794. U.S. Library of Congress, George Washington
Papers, Washington, DC. Transcript provided by The Papers of George Washington. Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, Mount Vernon, VA.
Pecoraro, Luke 2012 Mount Vernon Archaeology Small Project Form. 44FX116, Slave Memorial Path,
March 5-9, 2012. Manuscript, Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, Mount Vernon, VA.
Perry, Warren R., Jean Howson, and Barbara A. Bianco 2009 Summary and Conclusions, In The New York African Burial Ground: Unearthing
the African Presence in Colonial New York, vol. 2, The Archaeology of the New York African Burial Ground, Warren R. Perry, Jean Howson, and Barbara a. Bianco, editors, pp. 367-376. Howard University Press, Washington, D.C.
Pogue, Dennis J., and Judith D. Jobrack 1988 Mount Vernon Archaeology Field and Laboratory Manual. Manuscript on File,
Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. Mount Vernon, Virginia. Pogue, Dennis J., and Esther White 1991 Summary Report on the “House for Families” Slave Quarter Site (44FX762/40-
47), Mount Vernon Plantation, Mount Vernon, Virginia. Manuscript on File, Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, Mount Vernon, Virginia.
Pollio, H.R., Henley, T.B., and Thompson, C.J. 1997 The Phenomenology of Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Powers, Ann 2013 ‘12 Years A Slave’ Is This Year’s Best Film About Music [Blog Post]. Retrieved
from http://npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/11/12/244851884/12-years-a-slave-is-this-years-best-film-about-music.
124
Rainville, Lynn 2009 “Home at Last: Mortuary Commemoration at Virginia Slave Cemeteries” Markers
XXVI: Annual Journal of the Association of Gravestone Studies, Greenfield, MA. 2014 Hidden History: African American Cemeteries in Central Virginia. University of
Virginia Press. Charlottesville and London. Ravesloot, J.C. 1988 Mortuary Practices and Social Differentiation at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua,
Mexico. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers No. 49, University of Arizona, Temple.
Rees, James C. 2001 Looking Back, Moving Forward: The Changing Interpretation of Slave Life on the
Mount Vernon Estate. In Slavery at the Home of George Washington, Philip J. Schwartz, editor, pp. 159-179. Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, Mount Vernon, VA.
Rivanna Archaeological Services, LLC (RAS) 2013 Beyond the Walls: An African American Burial Ground at the University of
Virginia Volume 1: The Cemetery ‘H’ Expansion Project. Manuscript on File, Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. Mount Vernon, Virginia.
Sager, Mike 1982 30 Teams Vied For Design of Slave Memorial At Mt. Vernon. The Washington Post
3 November:VA11. Washington, DC. Samford, Patricia 2007 Subfloor Pits and the Archaeology of Slavery in Colonial Virginia. University of
Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Samuels, Robert 2014 “A memorial honors slaves who escaped the South for refuge in Alexandria, Va.,”
The Washington Post 7 September. Washington D.C. Scott, James C. 1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University
Press, New Haven. Sipe, Boyd 2011 The Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery Memorial, Archaeological Data
Recovery at Site 44AX0179. Report to Alexandria Archaeology, Alexandria, Virginia, from Thunderbird Archaeology, Gainesville, Virginia.
Slave and Slave Quarters N.D. Black notebook informational file. Mount Vernon Library, Mount Vernon, VA.
125
The Rhetorical Reader 1838 The Tomb of Washington-Anonymous. In The Rhetorical Reader: Consisting of
Instructions for Regulating the Voice, with a Rhetorical Notation, Illustrating Inflection, Emphasis, and Modulation; and a Course if Rhetorical Exercises Designed for the Use of Academies and High-Schools, Ebenezer Porter, Editor, pp. 159-162. Andover: Gould and Newman, New York.
The Tomb N.D. Black notebook informational file. Mount Vernon Library, Mount Vernon, VA. Thomas, David Hurst, Stanley South, and Clark Spencer Larson 1977 Rich Man, Poor Men: Observations on the Three Antebellum Burials from the
Georgia Coast. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 54(3) 393-420.
Thomas, Kenneth 2008 The Religious Dancing of American Slaves, 1820-1865: Spiritual Ecstasy at
Baptisms, Funerals, and Sunday Meetings. The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston. Thompson, Robert Farris 1969 African Influences on the Art of the United States. In Black Studies in the
University, Armstead L. Robinson et al., editors, pp.122-170. Yale University Press, New Haven.
1983 Flash of the Spirit: African Afro-American Art and Philosophy. Random House, New York, NY.
Thomas, William G. III, and Edward L. Ayers 2003 An Overview: The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American
Communities. The American Historical Review 108(5):1299-1307. Tilley, Christopher 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Bloomsbury
Academic, London. Upton, Dell 2010 [1985] White and Black Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia. In Cabin,
Quarter, Plantation: Architecture and Landscapes of North American Slavery, Clifton Ellis and Rebecca Ginsburg, editors, pp. 121-139. Yale University Press, New Haven.
1990 Imagining the Early Virginia Landscape. In Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology, Bill Kelso and Rachel Most, editors, pp. 71-88. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
126
U.S. Census 1940 Fairfax County, Virginia, population schedule, Mount Vernon, enumeration
district (ED) 30-19A, page 42, sheet 22DB, dwelling 76, Richard R. Napper household; digital images, National Archives (http://www.1940census.archives.gov: accessed 12 September 2014).
Vlach, John Michael 1990 Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1993 Back of the Big House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Washington Post 1967 Firm Seeks To Empty Old Cemetery. The Washington Post 8 August:A9.
Washington, DC. Weik, Terrance 2012 The Archaeology of Antislavery Resistance. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville. Western Literary Messenger 1846 “Visit to Mount Vernon,” Western Literary Messenger 6(May 2, 1846): 201. White, Esther 1994 Mount Vernon Archaeology Small Project Form. Slave Graveyard, August 1994.
Manuscript, Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, Mount Vernon, VA. Whitting, Anthony 1790 Farm Reports. 4 December 1790. U.S. Library of Congress, George Washington
Papers, Washington, DC. Transcript provided by The Papers of George Washington. Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, Mount Vernon, VA.
1792 Farm Reports. 14 January 1792. U.S. Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Washington, DC. Transcript provided by The Papers of George Washington, Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, Mount Vernon, VA.
Yerka, Stephen J. 2010 Geophysical survey of a suspected cemetery on Berkshire Road, Roane
County, Tennessee. Report Submitted to TVA. Yerka , Stephen J. and Daniel W. H. Brock 2009 Geophysical prospection of the Nashville city cemetery, Davidson County,
Tennessee. Report presented to Nashville Metro Historic Commission.
127
Appendix A: Grave Shafts Found through Small Projects at 44FX116 Slave Cemetery
As of May 2014, there had been eight grave shafts identified in the Slave
Cemetery as a result of small archaeological projects. Only two of these grave shafts
were fully exposed to reveal the exact dimensions of each burial. The remainder were
identified before being fully uncovered, and excavations ceased once that ID had been
made. The table below gives the dimensions of each grave shaft found in the cemetery
as of May 2014. One measurement is made to determine the overall length of the grave
shaft, and three measurements are taken at the head, midpoint, and foot of each grave
to determine the width of the grave shaft at those points. The head and foot of a grave is
identified based on the width of the grave shaft at both ends. The wider end is
considered to be the head of the grave. Because many grave shafts were not fully
exposed to reveal their overall dimensions, some information is unavailable, however
as much metric information as possible is given.
The 1994 excavations consisted of digging shovel test pits (STPs), while the
2008 excavations consisted of exploring proposed tree holes (THs). Each grave shaft
was given an identifier according to the STP or TH in which it was discovered. This is
reflected in the identification of each grave shaft in the table below. The grave shaft
found in 2007 was discovered when Test Unit (TU) 100, placed to explore the
foundation of the east arch footer, was expanded. The grave shafts found in 2012 were
labeled as archaeological features in TU 102.
128
TABLE A.1: Dimensions of all grave shafts exposed prior to 2014 field season
Year Grave Shaft Length (ft.) Width 1 (ft.) Width 2 (ft.) Width 3 (ft.) 1994 1 (STP 21) 4.25 1.40 1.50 1.30 1994 2 (STP 19)* x x 2.25 x 1994 3 (STP 22) x x x x 2007 4 (TU 100) 6.10 2.00 1.65 1.40 2008 5 (TH 4) † x x x x 2008 6 (TH 5) x x x x 2012 7 (102G) x x 1.95 x 2012 8 (102 H) x x x x
* Grave shaft 737D † Grave shaft 241C
129
Appendix B: Letter from Department of Historic Resources
Recommended
